1) Those who want to redefine marriage were asked "why not four people - 2 men and 2 women want to get married" by Justice Alito, and the person actually arguing for redefining marriage said, and I quote:
"I assume the states would rush in and say that when you're talking about multiple people joining into a relationship, that that is not the same thing that we've had in marriage, which is on the mutual support and consent of two people."
Justice Alito jumped all over that - "marriage between two people of the same sex is not something that we have had before!"
And the lawyer went on to say that we shouldn't let 4 people get married because divorces would get messy. Please. Like fear of messy divorces has ever altered the course of any of our legislatures or courts in the history of our country.
The fact is there is no answer to Justice Alito's question - why not 4, and when you try and say
"Well it COULDN'T be 4 because marriage has always been two" the argument shoots the redefiners of marriage in their own foot.
2) Justice Sotomayor asked: "How does withholding marriage from one group, same same sex couples, increase the value to the other group?"
And there we go - the same argument that's used by video gamers and teenagers - "Dude, it doesn't affect me if two guys down the street get married."
Have we lost all notion of the common good? Have we lost all sense that we're connected? We all spout, all the time "No man is an island...don't ask for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"...we recognize, on a fundamental level, that we're all connected, that our laws matter, And that it is disgusting, infantile and completely contrary to everything this country was founded on to make the sole criteria for the importance of a law be whether or not it happens to affect me right this minute if it is passed
BONUS point! (ha): By all accounts, Justice Kennedy is the only one on the fence on this issue, with the other 8 split 4-4. Justice Kennedy certainly had some tough questions for the marriage redefiners, and some are taking that as a sign of which way he'll go. However, let's remember during the Obamacare hearing he had Obama's lawyer stammering and confused and unable to say anything rational for several awkwardly long stretches, and yet Obamacare still passed, so you never know what is going to happen until we get the decision in May or June.
(NOTE: the text below is probably the best version. I made a few slight slight tweaks to it after filming last night. Nothing major. Hope it helps)
“A hired man, who is not a
shepherd sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away”
When I’ve preached on abortion, I’ve been accused of being a
right wing republican
When I’ve preached about the REQUIREMENT that Christ makes
of us to help the poor I’ve been accused of being a left wing liberal
When I’ve preached on religious freedom – right wing
republican
When I’ve preached on the Church’s teaching on immigration -
left wing liberal
This Comes with the “job.”
In fact, it just comes with being Catholic. That being said, it is important to note that
despite the accusations, the Church is not a political party.
I suspect, in this homily, that some will again accuse me
and/or the Church of meddling where it ought not to go, but, I guess after
being a priest for 5 years now, I just don’t care.
There is a wolf coming that is threatening the sheep that
must be preached on as well because our Church is very clear on this topic. Like the prophets, like Christ, like the
Apostles, like those being martyred today for their Catholic Faith throughout
the world, we preach the truth in season and out of season.
“A hired man, who is not a
shepherd sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away”
This week at the Supreme Court arguments will be heard about
whether marriage ought to be redefined
What I’ve been amazed at over the past few years is how
quickly the tone of this debate has turned.
If you even raise the possibility today that marriage is between
a man and a woman you should prepare for an all-out assault. You should prepare to be labeled a bigot,
angry, hateful, a Pharisee, etc.
One Catholic evangelist notes that we hear a lot about
tolerance. Tolerance is a good thing,
but it implies that I first disagree with a person before I can tolerate
them. We don’t tolerate the sunshine, we
tolerate the rain, and so tolerance can only take place in a climate of
disagreement, and yet tolerance is no longer extended to those who believe that
marriage is between a man and a woman.
One objection to this homily is that “The Church should stay
out of politics”
But this, at the end of the day, makes no sense
If something is talked about by politicians or judges or
whomever, does that mean it is no longer in the realm of Faith? If something is part of our civil discourse,
that we have to STOP talking about it here?
People likely told Fr. Theodore Hesburgh to keep his
religion out of politics when he walked arm in arm with Dr. Martin Luther King
to protest discrimination against African Americans – but he did it any way,
and thanks be to God that he did.
People likely told John Paul II to keep his religion out of
politics as he worked in the political realm to take down Communism – but he
did it anyway, and thanks be to God
The idea that if something is being talked about in the
political sphere means it can’t be talked about as a religious issue just doesn’t
pass muster
If murder were up for discussion at the state house, no one
would tell priests not to preach against murder
Pope Francis, in a daily homily recently, attacked this
belief that if something is in the political realm we should stop talking about
it in Church.
He said: “Some say a good Catholic doesn’t meddle in politics. That’s not true. That is not a good path. A good Catholic meddles in politics, offering
the best of himself, so that those who govern can govern… Politics, according to the Social Doctrine of the
Church, is one of the highest forms of charity, because it serves the common
good. I cannot wash my hands”
The Church actually compels us to be active in the
political sphere because it is in the political sphere that decisions that
affect the world are made.
The Church has a most
important book called the “Compendium of Social Doctrine of the Church” – and it
is a guide to how we are to be active and what we are to work for as people who
are engaged in the civil realm. To say
that we should stay out of these issues civilly is a non-Catholic stance.
Now, on the particular
topic of same-sex marriage – what does the Church say? This is absolutely crucial and so often confused,
and if we want to continue to see marriage being only between a man and a
woman, we have to understand this crucial teaching.
The most important takeaway
from this homily, if you remember nothing else is that the Church says in its
book on these issues - in order to defend marriage you don’t
need the Church, the Bible, or Jesus.
So often people make
this mammoth mistake in talking about this issue. Someone asks you: “Why do you believe marriage is between a man and a woman” and
people respond “because Jesus said so”, or “The
Bible says so,” or “The Catechism
says so” – but the quick follow up question by those who want to redefine
marriage is quite clear – “you can’t make
me do something because your religion says it!”
At this point – most Christians
and Catholics go slinking back home telling themselves “They’re right; I can’t say something ought to be this way because of
religion.”
The Church says,
however, that in order to say that marriage is between a man and a woman you don’t
need the Bible or Jesus or the Church to win the argument. Marriage being between a man and a woman,
according to the Church, is a first
principle – something that you need not be a follower of Christ to
understand.
The Church is not in
the government running business anymore.
We were for many centuries – Popes and Cardinals were highly intertwined
with governments, kings, etc.
We don’t run countries
anymore, and as George Weigel notes, “In separating the Church from the State,
what is clear is that the Church is better off for it. What isn’t clear is whether the state is
better off for it!”
The Church sees its
role as political advisor – particularly in offering first principles up
to nations. What the Church does is say
to all governments, kingdoms, etc. – here are some first principles, some
things that all just societies must put into practice if they hope to
endure. If you build your nation on
other principles that contradict these, your nation will not endure.
"first principles" are the "cornerstones" that any society must be built on, and we need not be a Christian to understand that these first principles must be cornerstones, nor do we need to use Christ to justify working to ensure that our country is founded on these cornerstones.
And everyone has first
principles. I was on a marriage panel at
Rose Hulman about a year ago and one guy who was arguing for redefining
marriage said “I really think it ultimately comes back to harmony and justice” – Okay, so those are your
first principles, the axioms on which you think the country should be founded,
the non-negotiables that everything is built off of.Of course the question quickly becomes “what
is harmony to you?”“who defines harmony?”“What does justice mean?”“Who defines what justice is?”
Others say a founding
axiom should be that “love is love.”
Okay, fair enough, you think that should be a first principle of our
society. Let’s flesh it out. You think that all love is the same? What if 8 people all love each other…is that
marriage? What if two cousins love each
other? What if a 55 year old and a 16 year
old love each other? Is the government
in the “congratulating people on being in love” business.
Everyone has first
principles, and we have just as much of a right to work for the first
principles that we think our nation should have as anyone else has a right to
work and advocate for first principles that they think our country should have.
So as Catholics, we
work to ensure that marriage being between a man and a woman is a first
principle in our government. We believe
that if it is not, then what will result is vastly different than a just and
healthy society.
"If, from a legal
standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one
possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical
transformation, with grave detriment to the common good." (Compendium of
Social Teaching, paragraph 228).
A solution that some
propose but which can not actually work because it does not actually understand
what the Church teaches is the proposed solution that the Church “get out of
the civil marriage business” – civil marriage and if you want to get married in
the Church, go do that too
“It is NOT appropriate
for Church authorities to remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it
grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the
responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire
civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect
herself from the application of harmful laws” - Congregation For The
Doctrine Of The Faith
Over the next several
months, there will be some opportunities to gather and talk about these
hot-button topics. Our parish council
has asked for these sessions, and I think they will be most helpful. We will put some dates together and have an
opportunity to continue to grow towards a deeper understanding of what the
Church teaches on these issues.
These are not easy
issues. I spent the last two years
working on a documentary on what the Church teaches about same sex
attraction. I interviewed a lot of
beautiful people who experience same sex attraction and heard their
stories. It was an amazing experience
for me. The way we grow toward unity is
through dialogue – not through name calling, labeling, and ignoring what the
other side is saying. I look forward to
these opportunities to gather and keep the conversation going.
In Conclusion – I am
not the only shepherd in this room. we are
all, through our baptism, called to shepherd those around us. Do we see our role in society to be a light
to the world – do I believe that I am called to shepherd and get involved in
the civil society I find myself placed in – or do I retreat to my home or my
Church building and say to God, like Cain did – “AM I MY BROTHER’S KEEPER?”
“A hired man, who is not a
shepherd sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away”
We pray for the
strength to be authentic shepherds, to work for the first principles that our
Church puts forth for all societies.
Pope Francis said that we shouldn’t always talk about contraception and
same sex marriage, and I wholeheartedly agree!
What the Pope implies in that comment is that we should talk about them
some of the time. May we have the courage
to do that, and not see problems arising in our country and simply run away.
First of all, theology means "the study of God", so something can't "have a theology" in the first place.
You hear a lot of people say things like:
"What's your theology of Grace" or
"What's your theology of Heaven" or
"What's your theology of history"
This doesn't make sense. It would make no sense to say "What's your study of God of Grace?"
Anyway...more importantly, to suggest that the Church's teaching on Confirmation isn't clear is ludicrous.
We know EXACTLY what Confirmation is, just as we know exactly what the other Sacraments are. The Catechism is perfectly clear about what Confirmation is.
Instead of blaming Church teaching for being confusing about Confirmation, we should blame the real problem - US!
We've made Confirmation way harder than it needs to be, and so we shouldn't be shocked at:
1) The number of adult Catholics who have never been confirmed
2) That our young people fall away from the Faith at SHOCKING rates PRIOR to us deigning them worthy to receive the exact Sacrament that is supposed to help them fend off attacks to their Faith!
Make no mistake, the disaster that is the way the Sacrament of Confirmation is handled in the US isn't in any way the fault of Church teaching, it is our fault.
There are two options for a wedding procession according to the Catholic Rite of Marriage:
"If there is a procession to the altar, the ministers [e.g., lectors, altar servers] go first, followed by the priest, and then the bride and bridegroom. According to local custom, they may be escorted by at least their parents and the two witnesses. Meanwhile, the entrance song is sung."
In the average US suburban parish today, where most of the other rubrics of Catholicism are disregarded, it should not surprise us that this rubric is also discarded.
In the typical suburban US Catholic wedding, the priest and groomsmen walk out of the sacristy, and this is followed by a 5 minute fashion show.
What the Church requires, however, is a procession - servers, followed by priest, followed by either
a) the bride and groom
or
b) groom and his parents followed by the bride and her parents
I would like to note a couple of objections that some might have to doing it the Church's way:
1) Bride: "This is my day!"
My response: "Say that slowly a few times and then see if you still want to say that out loud. Is the wedding Mass really about you? Is that not in fact one of the most narcissistic things you can say? When is a Mass ever ABOUT anyone other than Christ?"
2) Bride: "But I've envisioned doing it my way since I was three!"
My response: "Is it good to still want the same things when we are 20 that we wanted when we were 3 years old? When you were three you also wanted to be a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger, to eat all the cookie dough, and to snuggle with your snorting blanket."
3) Bride: "But I just want my Dad to walk me down the aisle!"
My response: "When else do we want to hearken back to the days when women were merely regarded as property to be given away? Your Mom raised you too."
4) Bride: "My groom can't see me before the wedding!"
My response: "Okay, so do you want to bring a lucky rabbits foot with you? Get married during a solar eclipse or when the stars are in the right order? Any other completely superstitious behaviors you want to have as a part of your wedding day?"
Look, which do you want?
The Church says something very important - the couple getting married are the MINISTERS of the Sacrament of Marriage!
What impression do you want people to have who attend your wedding?
There is SUCH AN INFINITE difference between incense, a crucifix, servers, a hymn, the Gloria (something else the Church asks that is often ignored) etc. vs. the standard narcissistic fashion show.
Weddings are one of the most frequently attended Masses by non-Catholics.
Do you want non-Catholics who attend your Wedding Mass to encounter Jesus as Jesus has asked the encounter to take place through his Church, or do you want people to remember you?
“I’m a Christian, and indeed
a Roman Catholic, so that I do not expect “history” to be anything but a long
defeat – though it contains some samples or glimpses of final victory.”
-page-001%2B(1).jpg)
