The Gaming of the Shrew

Sorry for the hiatus.  Sometimes life just gets out of control and needs time and focus to bring it back.   Sure you understand. 

We were looking at Pope Francis’ visit to the United States and I was only going to do one more entry on that topic—focusing on the papal liturgies in New York and Philadelphia—and move on, but then came the news about the Pope’s meeting with Kentucky refusnik, Kim Davis, the county clerk who gained a certain notoriety for refusing to issue any marriage licenses in her county rather than violate her conscience and issue licenses to same-sex couples.   Both Davis advocates and opponents took what they wanted from the papal meeting and in the end it’s ambiguity only puts a drag-sail on the high-flying mania Francis generated among Americans of every political, philosophical, and religious category. 

Of course, during the actual span of the Pope’s visit, there was no word from either Ms. Davis or the Holy See about this visit and it was only after the Pope was back in the Vatican that Ms. Davis’ legal team announced the visit and spoke of the Holy Father’s “encouragement” of Ms. Davis and her “cause.”  Ms. Davis is represented by Liberty Counsel which is affiliated with Liberty University Law School, part of the conservative Christian empire established by the late Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg VA.  Liberty Counsel is known for advancing an anti-homosexual agenda, considering laws that target “hate crimes” to undermine the civil liberties of Americans to “follow their conscience.”  In other words, Liberty Counsel is anxious to protect our supposed rights to exercise our various prejudices as long as our intolerance is an expression of our (Christian) faith.  (Whaaaat?  Which Gospel are we looking at here?)  The Southern Poverty Law Center only this week—and in part because of the manner in which it is handling the Kim Davis case—labeled Liberty Counsel a “hate group,” describing it as  “Liberty Counsel is a legal organization advocating for anti-LGBT discrimination under the guise of religious liberty”. Ms. Davis’ advocates have claimed that the invitation to meet the Pope came from the Holy See, notably the Papal Nuncio, and petitions are circulating for the removal of Archbishop Carlo Maria Vignano from his diplomatic post for “interfering” with a domestic political case.  However, sources in the Vatican Secretariat of State claim that while the invitation came from the Holy See, it came at the initiation (through third party channels) of Ms. Davis defense team.  In other words, Ms Davis and/or her legal team initiated the request for her to meet the Pope so that the opportunity could be used as an endorsement of her position in refusing to issue marriage licenses rather than issue licenses that would be used for same-sex marriages.  Supposedly the Holy See was furious that the meeting—which all had agreed would be confidential—was leaked to the press and felt that the Davis meeting undermined the Holy Father’s broader message of acceptance and inclusion to all people regardless of particularities in their lives.  The Pope, in the same gathering, had met and embraced a former student who presented his same-sex partner to the Holy Father. 

So what do we make of it? 

Well, there were any number of gaffes in the papal visit and while this is a bit more head-liner material than some others, it really doesn’t—I think—merit much attention.  The Pope met with all sorts of people during his visit.  He seemed to cover the bases well there.  Furthermore, while he might not have been well briefed on the complexities of the Davis case, there is a certain argument to be made for “conscientious objectors.”  People need to have the right to be faithful to their moral or religious values without being penalized for it.  Of course, conscientious objectors don’t serve in the army precisely because their religious beliefs would bar them from performing their military duties.  In the same way, if a county clerk is unable to perform the duties and responsibilities of his or her office for religious or moral reasons, they need to resign from that position rather than refuse required and legitimate service to the citizenry.  You really can’t have an entire county where it is impossible to obtain a marriage license.  Francis made good use of his talk at the White House to stand for authentic Religious Liberty.  It is a pity that Ms. Davis’ legal defense team wanted to push the boundaries of that principle to defend the indefensible.  It was a bit of cheap theatre to engineer a meeting with the Pope to give their cause some credibility.  In the end, however, Francis will be able to brush it off as a lesson to be learned in American legal slickness and Kim Davis continues to look more and more the desperate and angry shrew.   

Happy Fourth of July: Religious Freedom and Same-Sex Marriage

A priest friend of mine sent this letter to me and others who are interested in the question of Same Sex Marriage and the Catholic Church. 

This afternoon a couple came to the rectory and asked about getting married.  I turned them down.  It would have been a violation of my conscience to marry them.    No they weren’t a same sex couple—it was a man and a woman.  No, neither of them had been married before and divorced.  Yes, both of them were free to marry.  Yes both of them are baptized Catholics and, I fact, the man is a lector at Sunday Mass and the woman is at Mass more Sundays than not.  But I told them I could not marry them. 

We talked first, of course.  They are lovely people.  I invited them in to the rectory dining room and we had coffee and cookies—I always offer some refreshments to visitors when they come to the rectory; my mother taught me it is rude to have some one in your home and not offer them something to eat and something to drink.   And our housekeeper makes wonderful little petit-fours.  We talked about why they want to marry, how they met, their family backgrounds.  But in the course of the conversation they mentioned that they were not going to have children.  No, there is no problem conceiving.  No, there is no issue of hereditary diseases or congenital birth defects.  No, there are no health problems that either of them is facing.  It is simply a matter of careers.  Janet is a physician—a surgeon actually—and has a very successful practice.  She does not want to alter her career path to be a mother.  Robert is a tenured professor and can’t see himself being a stay-at-home dad.  In what vacation time they have, they are used to travelling.  They both like Opera and usually take a week in Milan for the La Scala season.  They ski Aspen in the winter.  They have some river cruises in Europe they would like to do.  They said that they have nieces and nephews to take to Disney World and to bring to the circus and even to pay their way through college.  They don’t want kids of their own. 

I am not going to say that they are selfish—they really don’t seem to be—but they are self-centered.  They have a vision for marriage but it is not the Church’s vision for marriage.  And so I won’t marry them.

And guess what.  No one is going to make me marry them.  No one is saying that I don’t have the freedom, as a priest, to decide which marriages I will celebrate and which ones I won’t.  It is not a matter of “discrimination.”  No one is to say that I am anti-DINK (Double Income No Kids).  Yes, they will get married.  I am sure some judge somewhere will do the honors.  Or maybe my friend, Celia, the local Methodist pastor across the road. I wish them luck.   I really don’t care if Janet rents the local K of C hall for her bridal shower.  I don’t see that as betraying the Church.  I will not be upset if Bill Rogers—the guy who runs the bakery in town—does the wedding cake.  I will still give Bill communion if he bakes the cake.  And I will still hire Mike—our parish web-designer—if he does the photography for their wedding.  In fact, I hope Janet and Robert keep coming to Mass.  I won’t stop them from coming to communion.  I hope Robert returns to his lectoring at Mass once the fuss is over and people get used to it. I won’t go to the wedding, of course, but if their parents have any qualms about it I will assure them that they should go.

What I am saying here is that I don’t get the religious freedom tocsin that some people are sounding.  Civil Marriage and Christian Matrimony are two separate things—though they often coincide.  I am not interested in Civil Marriage.  When Gladys and Dan came last year and asked if I would celebrate their Marriage without them having to have civil recognition of their marriage (it was an estate issue that would have seriously hurt them financially), I agreed without hesitation.  My job is to witness Christian matrimony.  If the State of Virginia wants to recognize that marriage it is fine with me, but I really don’t give a rat’s behind. On the other hand, let the State of Virginia recognize which marriages it chooses; I only bless those that are in line with the Catholic Church.  And you know, nobody is giving me any grief about that.  My religious freedom isn’t being threatened one iota. 

I certainly think we need to be vigilant about our liberties—all our liberties—as well as about the common good in our society.  But I also think that the screaming about Religious Freedom is simply a mask for the most gross and unacceptable bigotry.  There was a day when in Virginia—and many other “southern” States, a clergyman had to post a bond (usually about 500.00 in 1960 money—or about 2500.00 in today’s money) in order to be licensed to perform marriages.  Why?  He would lose the bond if he performed a marriage in Commonwealth of Virginia between a “person of the white race” and a “person of color.”  Where were the Catholic voices then when the Civil Law contradicted the teaching of the Church?   We need to be mighty careful not to be on the wrong side of history—by which I mean the wrong side of what is right and just—on the issues of who should be able and who should not be able to contract a civil marriage.  

Yet Another Bishop Who Has Something Worthwhile To Say About Supreme Court Rulings

Archbishop Blase Cupich 

In my previous posting, I commented on the excellent response of Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah to the Supreme Court decision on Same Sex Marriage.  Now another Bishop has spoken out intelligently in response to both the Affordable Care Act and Same Sex Marriage decisions of the Court.  Archbishop Blase Cupich of Chicago is in Rome to receive the pallium—the yoke-like stole that a metropolitan archbishop wears as a sign of unity with the successor to Saint Peter, the Bishop of the Church of Rome.  (We used to say “Pope” a lot, or “Roman Pontiff”, but the current occupant of the Chair of Peter likes the more ancient title, the Bishop of Rome.)  Being out of the country and busy about a lot of ceremonial things, Cupich could have dodged the bullet about the Supreme Court ruling on Same Sex Marriage but he chose to weigh in on both last week’s Supreme Court decisions and he did a great job by choosing not to be a gracious loser (which is better than a lot of his more vituperative  confreres did) but by putting a Christian spin on the decisions while clearly maintaining Catholic doctrine.  What is particularly significant about Archbishop Cupich’s response is that it comes from the exact time of his being shown to be in direct union with the Pope (aka The Bishop of Rome) and thus with the Universal Church.  Let’s hope that Pope Francis gives us more bishops of Cupich’s kind to lead the Church in these times when religion (in general) and the Catholic Church (in particular) is trying to carve out for itself a new place in the public life of our society.  Archbishop Cupich is the sort of Bishop who can give the Church a credibility that some of his predecessors and confreres have so wantonly squandered. 

This week the Supreme Court of the United States issued two rulings with particular meaning for the Catholic Church.

In the first, the Court preserved subsidies for the 6.4 million low-income Americans who depend on them to purchase health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. We have issues with provisions of that legislation and will continue to advocate to preserve our religious freedom. However, we understand that for millions of individuals and families, most of them the working poor, this decision preserves access to health care and the promise it offers of a healthier, longer life.

In the second decision, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that two persons of the same sex have a constitutional right to marry each other. In doing so, the Court has re-defined civil marriage. The proposed reason for the ruling is the protection of equal rights for all citizens, including those who identify themselves as gay. The rapid social changes signaled by the Court ruling call us to mature and serene reflections as we move forward together. In that process, the Catholic Church will stand ready to offer a wisdom rooted in faith and a wide range of human experience.

It is important to note that the Catholic Church has an abiding concern for the dignity of gay persons. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (n. 2358). This respect must be real, not rhetorical, and ever reflective of the Church’s commitment to accompanying all people. For this reason, the Church must extend support to all families, no matter their circumstances, recognizing that we are all relatives, journeying through life under the careful watch of a loving God.

It is also important to stress that the Supreme Court’s redefinition of civil marriage has no bearing on the Catholic Sacrament of Matrimony, in which the marriage of man and woman is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church. In upholding our traditional concept of marriage, we are called to support those who have entered into this sacred and loving bond with God and each other.

This will be especially important for the members of our own Church as we walk together, respectful not only of the political demands of equality, but above all else, guided by the higher claims of divine revelation. Our aim in all of this will be to hold fast to an authentic understanding of marriage which has been written in the human heart, consolidated in history, and confirmed by the Word of God.

Not All Bishops Are Krazy

Bishop Gregory Hartmayer of Savannah offered what is, I believe, the best response of any Catholic leader to the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutional right to marry to those in same-sex unions.  The bishop draws a clear line between marriage in the Civil Law and the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Sacrament of Matrimony.  He also reminds us of the absolute necessity of meeting those with whom we disagree on this or any other issue with civility.  He sets forth the faith of the Church regarding matrimony with the Gospel mandate for charity.  Good going Bishop Hartmayer.  May Pope Francis give us more bishops who can put difficult issues in a Christian perspective.  Here is what the Bishop wrote:

“Each U.S. Supreme Court decision that has ever been rendered has resulted in deep disappointment for some and vindication for others. If we all agreed on the outcomes of divisive cases, there would be no reason for the Court ever to convene. This most recent decision is no different.

“By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again this one is no exception. This decision does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and a woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessings of precious new life.

“The Catholic Church will always maintain that marriage is a vocation of a man and a woman to faithfully commit themselves, through sacred vows, to a life shared until death which pledges them to complement one another in their development as husband and wife and to be co-creators with God in the procreation of human life.

“This decision of the Supreme Court is primarily a declaration of civil rights and not a redefinition of marriage as the Church teaches.

“However, this judgment does not dispense either those who may approve or disapprove of this decision from the obligations of civility toward one another. Nor is it a license for more venomous language or vile behavior against those whose opinions differ from our own.

“This Court action is a decision that confers a civil entitlement to some people who could not claim it before. It does not resolve the moral debate that preceded it and will most certainly continue in its wake.

“The moral debate however must also include the way that we treat one another – especially those with whom we may disagree. We are all God’s children and are commanded to love one another. In many respects that moral question is at least as consequential and weighty as is the granting of this civil entitlement.

“This decision has offered all of us an opportunity to continue the vitally important dialogue of human encounter especially between those of diametrically differing opinions regarding its outcome.

“This decision has made my task as bishop more complex as I continue to uphold the teachings of my Church on the Sacrament of Matrimony and the equal transcendent dignity of every human person.”