Rodger Mahoney, a spokesman for God, said that the judge left God out of the decision. “Those of us who supported Prop 8 and worked for its passage did so for one reason: We truly believe that Marriage was instituted by God for the specific purpose of carrying out God's plan for the world and human society. Period.” This is exactly what the judge should have done, leave God out of the decision. There is, the last time I looked, the separation between church (God) and state in the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=7112
I will grant people like Rodger Mahony and the American Family Association the right to new trial, and it would have to be sort of mock trial whereby they are allowed to bring in all their bible quotes and religious experts to try and prove God is against homosexuality and gay marriage. Since it would be sort of a trial, there would be a whole side for the defense, with more biblical quotes and many more religious experts to counter the arguments of those opposed to gay marriage. I think it would be a spectacular trial. In the end, it would probably end with a hung jury or no verdict reached. Well, you could always appeal to God, that is to the God of your choice.
yep!
ReplyDeleteRead Mahoney's statement, that of the Amer Bishops, and some other hierarchs. As social scientist who has studied the development of human societies from hunter-Gathers through contemporary life, at least the bishops ought not be so loose about the history of marriage.
Perhaps if they applied a historist approach to the issue of sex as is already done in social justice ethics, we might get somewhere.
Everyone keeps talking about "THE traditional marriage and family. I ask which ONE are they talking about. The fundamental Catholic understanding of marriage was stated only at the Council of Trent. The problem is the mentality of Church leaders still comes out of the Council of Trent. I guess nothing in the world and human life has changed since the 1,500s. Haha. If you believe that, you probably believe the "current" official teaching of the Church.
Sabastian,
ReplyDeleteGood to hear from you. I appreciate your historical approach to the study of marriage.
I really liked Judge Walker's ennumeration of the reality of gay life.
It's a different world. Bishops like Mahony are frozen somewhere in the past. Their statements do not make much sense.
Yep,
ReplyDeleteI,ve been reading and doing a lot of thinking and reflecting on sex, marriage and where homosexual people fit in.
Much depends on whether one holds a classicist or historically conscious worldview. It also depends on whether one focuses on an act-based / legal or relational-personal form of ethics.
Many would claim that "the" Catholic Church is entirely classicist and "Secularism" is at least historically conscious in its approach. But that dichotomy is simplistic and false.
Within the Catholic community itself, Vatican II revisionist (progressive) moral theologians propose a point of view that is authentically Catholic, historically conscious and relational and personal. At the very least this model makes dialogue with others more possible and potentially positive.
Catholics(even progressives)can believe that God is the author of marriage, but this is a religious belief and cannot have a place in actual court proceedings. The important historical questions are: 1) just what have been the definitionS of marriage/the purposes / "goods" of marriage at least throughout the Western World? And 2) how and when is marriage "effected" or brought about?
These are key questions not only in dealing with heterosexual marriage(which is in a state of chaos now), but also homosexual love, gay marriage and same-sex behavior.
The Classicist view has been dying in Catholic social ethics since before Vatican II. That view has been replaced by a historically conscious way of thinking. Even popes, Councils, and Vatican Congregations use a historically conscious way of thinking regarding SOCIAL ethics. Have no doubt that latter understanding will come to predominate in the realm of sexual ethics also. Peace!!!