NH lawmaker writes of tension with parish

A sad state of affairs. My sister is very involved with her church in Montana. You would think that she was extremetly conservative, but she, and her church are very welcoming and have so called "liberal" views. Maybe you should run for office there. They are becoming increasingly more progressive, and for that, I can say:"Thank God!"

See -- it's not just gays and lesbians. The Catholics, along with the other right-wing churches, want to invade people's lives more and more. Be warned. As soon as they take away GLBT rights, they're coming after yours.

Representative Flockhart, please let us know the name of your courageous pastor, so we can send hearty thank-yous. Ma'am, he was just doing his job. You are in manifest, public disagreement with fundamental teachings of our church. To have kept you in those roles would have caused scandal, that is, people would have been unsure if the talk of church teaching would be backed up by the walk, in this case, you walking. If you have been previoiusly warned, as you ought to have been, you are in the state of 'contumacity,' which means stubborn, unrepentant holding of an error, which is worse than mere ignorance.

Your newsletter is called "Conscience," and that explains much. We Catholics do not just have any empty conscience, to be filled by whatever our sick secular culture considers the fad morality of the present. We have INFORMED consciences, that is, informed by the teaching of Jesus, handed down to the apostles down to us. Both the Old and New Testaments teach that marriage is between one man and one woman. If you choose the current secular teaching, based on feelings, you are choosing against the teaching of your Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. That is considered naughty. Conscience is the voice of God speaking in our soul, and he never contradicts himself, so when he says marriage between one man and woman in the Bible, he whispers the same thing in your soul. You can choose to ignore God's voice; that is the definition of sin.

You write of not imagining the "God of my own faith as being so heartless." Well, dear, it is not just YOUR subjective faith, it is the objective faith of the church. God is not heartless. He is full of love because he wants people to be happy. and the happiness he has built into the fabric of human nature is marriage by one man and one woman. If you are not called to that vocation, you are called to the single life, and called to have friends, good friends, even intimate friends, of both sexes. But those friendships, as wonderful as they are, are not marriage.

Nicho1 - you are the reason I do not practice the Catholic religion. Perhaps you should take your own advice on contumacy. If you are going to lecture someone on contumacy at least get the spelling correct!

Gaudete,
Thank you! Could not have said that better myself.
How people who are pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, etc can call themselves good Catholics is stunning, truly beyond comprehension. If you disagree with the basic tenets of your faith, in all good conscience you should worship in another religion. And we shall wish you godspeed...

I wonder how may peophiles that pastor covered up for ???
Bishop McCormack should be doing heavy time for his role in the child rape scandal.
The Diocese of Manchester secret archives are on the website: BISHOPACCOUNTABILITY.ORG
Truely shocking.

Rep Flockhart- your Pastor did the right thing. As a lector you are representing the Church and they can decide who represents them. The views and teachings are not new and should not come as a shock to you. God gave us free will and you are entitled to exercise your free will and speak out for what you believe in even if it goes against what the Church's position is. However you cannot cry foul when the Church asks that you step aside and not represent them at Mass as a lector.

I am sorry if you feel stifled but no one is saying that you cannot attend Mass (at least to my knowledge) and practice your faith, they are just saying you cannot be their representative. To keep you as a lector would be like asking Steven Jobs to be the mouthpiece for the Microsoft, it isn't going to work. You are not bound to the Church you are free to associate with the Church or leave, so if you don't like the rules no one is forcing you stay. You want your cake and to eat it too and that is not going to happen.

We are all human and as such we will all make mistakes and we will all go against Church doctrine at various times in our life. I am speaking as a practicing Catholic myself. I have made mistakes and I don't always live within the doctrine, but then again I not representing the Church as a lay minster in the form of lector, Eucharistic Minister, usher etc but a parishioner trying to grow my faith and live to the best of my ability a faithful life here on earth.

Gaudette

Thank you also. The teachings of the church are clear - I have sent notes to various leaders who are so called Catholics and try to express that their views on gay-marriage and pro-choice are within Catholic teachings - sorry Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, John Kerry, et al you are off base - you have no moral standing on these two issues

You see, it's really very simple. If you believe what the Church teaches, then you are Catholic. If you disagree with settled Church teaching, you are not Catholic--you have setup your own religion, since you yourself are the arbiter of what you believe.
Good luck with that....

Dear Representative Flockhart,
Please publish the name & address of your pastor so that people can write to him.
If he read the U.S. BISHOP'S ELECTION BOOKLET, he would see that the Bishops warned people about being SINGLE ISSUE voters. The bishops urged Catholics to look at all the issues to see how a political leader follows ALL the teachings of the Gospel to help the poor & to reach out to ALL people & to follow the Social Justice teachings of the Church.
It sounds like your Pastor is a SINGLE ISSUE, PRO LIFE person, focussing only on the unborn. What does he say about War? Torture? Structural poverty? etc.

When the Church teaches about faith and/or morality, it teaches with the authority of Christ, who founded the Church. He said to Peter, the first pope: "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Therefore, Catholics must form their consciences by referring to the Church's teachings. If people disagree with this, then they are free to look for another church. They should not be surprised that they cannot be public representatives while disagreeing with basic principles of the Church.

For all the people supporting the church's stance on gay marriage I dare them to step away from their sermons and read the ACTUAL teachings of Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does he even discuss homosexuality. If you forward the notion that this is a 'basic tenet' of the faith then you are truly just towing the line for the church's hierarchy and certainly must only identify yourself as Catholics because you certainly aren't Christian. If you want basic tenets of Christiantiy you need look no further than the ten commandments, which so many 'good Christians' obey only when it's convenient if at all. I would guess you look the other way at the atrocities committed by your church throughout history as well, but most recently the aiding of child molestors in their fold by protecting them and in this case their condoning of a tyrannous majority over the minority basing their beliefs on obscure biblical passages from Leviticus, which is also the book that says children should be stoned for disobeying their parents, couples who have sex during a woman's period should be cut off from society, and best of all it condones slavery. This lesson can also be learned from history as recent as the 1970s. While the biblical passages were different the exact same arguments used today against gay marriage mirror those used against interracial marriage. According to the church of 30 years ago it has lost it's morality since it now performs interracial marriages. I can only hope another 30 years will bring about the same change for homesexual couples.

Dear Rep. Flockhart:
I, too, am a lifelong Catholic. I spent three years as a Jesuit volunteer in the missions and five years as a Trappist monk. I left the monastic life in 1968 and spent 40 years teaching in a boys' Catholic high school. I taught New Testament studies, Physics, Chemistry, Maths, Sexuality Education and am the father of four.
My life has been filled with great joy and some great trials. I was a "good" Catholic until the advent of Cardinal Law. His introduction to our parish was a tape recorded appeal that we increase our financial support to 10% of our income. I began to realize that the church was no longer in touch with the with the financial hardships facing a Catholic high school teacher's family of six.
I always felt that the Church erred in history by having a moral theology which stemmed from a medieval biology that taught that the male produced the semen "seed" and the female supplied the "field" in which the seed was planted. Had this been the case, then every male ejaculation lost countless millions of seeds which failed to grow to maturity, so in a sense constituted "microscopic" manslaughter. "Wet dreams", masturbation, withdrawal, the rhythm method, vasectomies, tubal ligation, oral sex, and any kind of barriers such as condoms, IUDs were all equivalent homicides.
Upon this faux scientific base, the Church's moral theology grew. The Church forbade all of the above, and technically continues to do so, as it does with abortion at any stage, exposure of infants, infanticide, euthanasia and every form of suicide and/or homicide by an adult.
The genuine science is, however, that the sperm exists in the man only, and without fertilization, ceases to exist (live), out side the body in a matter of a minute or two, as a non-human being. The female ova exists for hours after failure to be fertilized and/or implanted in the endometrial lining, and subsequently sloughed out in menstruation. If, however, the ova is fertilized by sperm, the zygote has a average life expectancy of 80-90 years, and theologically, of eternal life life after death.
I accept what modern science teaches, but I realize that science is empirical by definition and is limited to reasoning based upon temporal and three-dimensional, observable, data. Yet in addition to trusting science, I also profess to "beliefs in things"unseen. I trust in Jesus' first recorded words, his keynote" address in Mark [1:17]…
['Change the way you think about reality"]…for the Kingdom of
Heaven is within you. Believe this "good news".

My dilemma as a Catholic has been to be "liberal" sociologically, liberal insofar as my understanding of current biblical scholarship, and liberal in attempting to NOT BE a judge of everyone else's moral judgments.
I do, however, reserve a most conservative appreciation of the truth that the Kingdom of Heaven is WITHIN. It indwells me, you everybody and everything including and always, the pre-born.
I feel that the Catholic Church never made clear to the laity the distinction between Contraception and Abortion. This made 1968 [Humanae Vitae] a particularly troubling year for the lay and clerical Catholic.
Entirely bound up in this tangled problem, is the use of the term "Right to Free and Private" Choice. Barack Obama holds the view that while he cannot approve any personal choice of his own to abort, he would not forcibly prevent another making that choice.
I believe that the Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court was equally as wrong as was the Dred Scott decision a century earlier. Was Dred Scott a person? Is the fetus at whatever stage a person ? My answer to both questions is an unqualified "Yes!".
I voted for Barack Obama. I campaigned for Barack Obama. I put up with condemnation from one-issue Catholic friends and relatives, yet I was as happy as I have ever been politically, since 1960, when a wonderful group of Jesuit volunteers stayed up all night listening to election results coming into Above Rocks, Jamaica via the U.S. Armed Services radio.
Rep Flockhart: This is a generation of Catholics who no longer fear Rome.
To paraphrase Cardinal Cushing: "Rome has spoken", we add "So?"

Wendy, Mike, Charlie Mc,

1. Yes, Wendy, it is ok for a Catholic who dissents privately on any of these issues to go to communion, as long as he/she remains open to the possibility that she/he is not infallible, that the 2000 year old church might know better, and she/he doesn't infect others with his/her doubts, as this public politician has.

2. Mike: You say Jesus didn't discuss homosexuality, but at Matt.19:5, he states that marriage is between a man and a woman. In doing so he is quoting the Old Testament, and he came, not to abolish the law, but to complete it. Which means all the OT condemnations of gay sex (as opposed to homosexual orientation) are part and parcel of Jesus' teaching.. You cite the 10 commandments, but Mike, the 9th says "do not covet thy neighbor's wife," not 'do not covet thy neighbor's boyfriend.'

3. Charlie McNamee, your life story is full of interesting and worthwhile things, and i admire you. But, no offence, but i think you are, like most liberals, stuck in the glory days of the 1960's, when so many of you burst the bonds of Victorian Jansenism, and have been living out of that paradigm ever since. You say: "this is a generaton of Catholics who no longer fear Rome." But that is your graying generation. Nobody should fear Rome, but most younger Catholics, who bother to go to Church, loved Pope John Paul II and love Benedict XVI. These young Catholics figure: either i'm going to be a real, 100% Catholic, or not at all.

Charlie Mc, PS

You say that you were a 'good Catholic' until the advent of Cardinal Law. Cardinal Law did some good things of which i personally know. As far as his job as archbishop, he made many sins of omission, not commission, but the 'buck stops here,' and he definitely should have resigned.

But surely you know that if you prize the Catholic Christian faith so much, that is the 'baby,', and Card. Law was the bathwater, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Our relatonship to the Lord, especially in His Body and Blood at Mass, is too precious, no matter what the moral state of the priest that day is--who can look into the heart?

Dear Rep. Flockhart,

I agree with Wendy, regardless of one's personal views on the Roman Catholic church, if you are a lay leader or any other active participant and your public views differ from the established Church doctrine than it does cause a problem. As much as I applaud your stance, as an elected official whose views are obviously public knowledge, you should recuse yourself. You can do as my mother does and attend Mass every Sunday, come home and complain about all of her grievances but she does not get involved with her church beyond attending Mass.

If however despite recusing yourself and tensions still exist and you have a strong calling to a religious/faith community then I would suggest finding another Christian faith. I left the Roman Catholic Church almost twenty years ago and came back to faith and spirituality after the death of my father, following a long search I ended up at an Episcopal Church which has been my spiritual home for the past five years. If you prefer to remain a Roman Catholic, the Paulist Church is a more liberal-leaning branch of Catholicism. As troubling as this may be, your faith in God will always be your strength. I hope that through prayer He will help to guide you on your spiritual path and despite this hiccup always know that He will be there for you.

One or two brief observations:
“Both the Old and New Testaments teach that marriage is between one man and one woman.” “Gaudete” has obviously not read very much of the Hebrew Bible. This is understandable for a Catholic, nonetheless, I feel I should point out that in much of the Hebrew Bible marriage is between one man and several women. It’s a bit kinky but that’s “traditional” marriage. Indeed this is still the way marriage is practiced in some parts of traditional Africa. At any rate, Gay Marriage just isn’t on the same level as abortion or euthanasia. These are life and death issues. While sex matters deeply, it’s not on the level of life or death.

Dan says: “You see, it's really very simple. If you believe what the Church teaches, then you are Catholic. If you disagree with settled Church teaching, you are not Catholic.” First I would like to point out that only third rate minds think simple thoughts. Secondly I would note that your position is a little off. Technically it is not what you believe, i.e. faith, that makes you Catholic, it is the sacrament of Baptism, and that sacrament cannot be undone. The recipient is fundamentally changed by it and cannot take it back, although they may deny it or abandon its implications. Your position seems to be more the Lutheran one.

Gaudete says: “In doing so he is quoting the Old Testament, and he came, not to abolish the law, but to complete it. Which means all the OT condemnations of gay sex (as opposed to homosexual orientation) are part and parcel of Jesus' teaching.” I think the degree to which the Law is still valid among Christians is a very difficult question which has been argued for 2000 years. St. Paul seems to have had a somewhat different view than St. Matthew. I would also note that the bible says not to lend money with interest, and that this was the consistent teaching of the Church until the 18th century. Today it’s fine to charge interest: so even hard core Catholics don’t follow every biblical injunction.

The Catholic moral tradition is in fact highly complex, so when one disagrees with an element of that teaching, one often appeals to a different aspect of Church teaching to do so. There are different methods of doing moral theology that have been practiced over the past 2000 years. Opponents of gay marriage tend to appeal to a deontological model which views morality as a question of obeying certain rules. One could look to Catholic social teaching, however, and see a different model of moral theology, one focused more on a relational model. So when a person criticizes Church teaching on a moral issue, it is often because they find a discrepancy with another area of the tradition.

Finally I would note that while in principle the pastor is correct to remove someone who goes against a fundamental Church teaching (if someone denied the divinity of Christ for example, would anyone be shocked?) the method by which this occurred in this instance is clearly not correct. The lack of conversation is inexcusable. Conversation and conversion are intimately connected. To simply declare Church teaching presumes that Church teaching completely understands God and God’s will for us, and points to an underlying lack of confidence. It also freezes Church teaching and thereby robs it of its fertility and the possibility of growth. A monologue simply isn’t very Trinitarian.

If any church or it's leader(s) believe it /they have the right to dismiss it's follower's based on their votes as a state or federal office holder that makes our laws, then they are overstepping the separation of powers act. This amendment works both ways. after the way the executive office & the Justice department have been run over the past 7+ years, we can clearly see the damage done when you have the political process marred by religious ideology. This church is clearly trying to push it's ideology into the political process of the state, which is clearly forbidden within the constitution. The best way to begin preventing this, is to declare that this parish is no longer acting aas a church, & start taxing it as a business professing political ideaology.

This is not a debate about what some bible or religion has to say on the subject of homosexuality.

This debate is about the civil laws of this country, the United States of America, and the legal rights accorded to its citizens.

As I read our ultimate law of the land, the US Constitution, your imaginary friend does NOT have the legal right to decide who I am permitted to marry, nor to determine whom I can love, nor to determine how I file my taxes or obtain health care benefits. So please stop quoting the 'bible' as if those quotes mean anything at all to those of us citizens not practicing your religion. They are YOUR rules but they do not legally bind all Americans in any way - unless we have somehow become a theocratic dictatorship in the mold of Iran or Saudi Arabia and someone forgot to tell me.

Keep your hatred inside the churches where it belongs - and out of our laws.

Gaudete: You are referring to a passage (Matthew 19) where Jesus was asked about divorce from one's wife and is a much stronger argument against divorce than homosexual marriage. Jesus (obviously) was Jewish and was quoting the old testament in his response (Genesis 2:24). He did not actually define marriage here so much as he remarked that when a man and woman are married then they aren't able to be divorced. Being a Jewish man and quoting a passage on marriage doesn't even come close to saying everything else that the Old Testament says about marriage is correct and eternally binding - nevermind your assertion that it does the same for sexuality which isn't even the topic of the passage. Your comment regarding the 10 commandments is really quite silly. The commandment also does not say forbid coveting thy neighbor's husband. Do you believe then that that is ok?

Gaudette,
Uhmm....you don't speak for God. In fact you only speak for doctrine that wants to keep all forms of critical and spiritual inquiry in a straight jacket. I am a Catholic but I beleive in God first and foremost. Dogma is not my God. I think I speak for many Catholics when I say that we do not need your approval or anyone else for that matter to affirm our faith. The world is big, try getting out once in a while.
As for Ms. Flockhart, keep up the Good Fight and God's Speed!

In 1960, there were grave concerns in many circles over electing a Roman Catholic president. Many protestants were concerned that "the pope would be running the country." In response to these concerns, JFK said, "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters — and the Church does not speak for me."

Now, almost 50 years later, the Catholic church in the United States actively and aggressively seeks to exert exactly the sort of influence on politicians and the political process that was so feared in JFK's day. JFK's response was the correct one.

And it is funny sincethe Catholic Church is in a state of crisis in the United States, with rapidly decreasing numbers of parishoners (which equates to rapidly decreasing revenues), increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining priests and nuns, and a lack of clear vision for its future role in American society. If the church continues down its path of excluding all but those who rabidly believe in its exclusive and anachronistic documents, not only will the pews be empty, but the doors will be closed as well.

It comes down to this: we are a country founded under the constitution NOT the bible. The Constitution allegedly guarantees equal rights under the law and freedom of and FROM religion. Why can't christian right wingers Believe whatever 2- thousand year old hogwash and fairy tales they want to and keep it to themselves...religion or lack thereof is a personal choice. The Christian Right, bolstered by this moronic president has a downrigth terrifying agenda of shoving their brand of religion down the throats of everyone else, and a return to the "good old days" of governing under the bible...a table where if you do not believe in Jesus and their interpretation of the bible you are NOT welcome. They truly believe the second coming of Christ is near, and they will push to get their armageddon no whatever what it takes. It is your intolerance of anyone else that has made this world a more dangerous place to live in, you have only emboldened Islamist extremists.

M.E.--Yes and No.
Catholicism is conferred at Baptism (so even most Protestants are actually Catholic in early childhood, but that's another post). However, anyone who then later publicly dissents and opposes settled Church teaching would be an heretic or an apostate. Such a person who persists in such grave and public sin not only cuts herself off from the Church, but also from God Himself.
If simplicity is the mark of a third-rate mind, then does that make God mediocre in His Simplicity?

There is a difference between disagreeing with your church and using your position as a political figure to force your political views on others. But what does it truly mean to BE Catholic? Is it about your personal spiritual beliefs? Or is it about forcing your (and the Church's) personal spiritual beliefs on others who don't share those beliefs in a nation where the separation of Church and State is one of our most fundamental principles?
The Catholic Church wants its constituents to force their views on others by insisting that politicians who do not back Church policy as governmental policy are not true Catholics. This is a policy that is NOT compatible with the founding principles of the United States of America.

You should ALL go see Bill Maher's Religulous. If you don't want Bill to get your box office $$$ then buy a ticket to a different movie playing at the same theatre and see it. You might not like him, but he'll make you think no matter what religion you practice, if you practice at all.

The gay marriage political argument in the United States has NOTHING to do with the Catholic church, or any other church. Stop quoting the Bible!

There are homosexual people in the US. They are not going away. There are a series of laws and court rulings protecting them from discrimination. Most of these laws do not apply to your church, since we enjoy a separation of church and state here in the US. So, no one is to barge into your church and force you to marry gay people, or to change your doctrine to accommodate current law. You don't seem to have a problem with the reverse scenerio.

So...are all you self-righteous bloggers who profess to be Catholics and judging others saying that you don't use birth control? Cuz that's a strict no-no, too.

Face it Catholics, you are all LIVING IN SIN as you practice birth control. And it is hugely hypocritical of of you and priest to admonish a parishioner for one perceived sin - even though she did not actually commit one - but then leave the other sinners in alone. But I guess they are comitting the same sins as you are so it is OK. I used to be a Catholic; if you really think about it instead of just going along, it is a bit hard to be a Catholic and realize that you are living a lie.

Civil law has nothing to do with this as this is an internal Church matter. Gay marriage is clearly in violation of scripture, there is no way that Jesus would condone such a thing since he lived by and fulfilled said scripture. Moreover, Rep Flockharts pro death position pertaining to the unborn is completely untenable within the church

Hmmm ... Exeter.
Could this be the same parish that's building a mall-like monstrous church on donated land despite the objections of the abutters?
Yes, that's a group that certainly knows how to make friends in the community. And isn't that what politics is all about? Making friends and casting the net of influence across the community?
How I wish these Catholics would move to some remote area so they could practice their bizarre medieval religion and leave the rest of us in peace.

Setting aside the more esoteric theological issues, I can't help but notice some folks misunderstand what the doctrine of separation of church and state means.
Let me start by admitting that I am no longer a Catholic. I made the choice to leave the church because, as I read Scripture more deeply and spent more time engaging in an understanding of my faith, I came to the conclusion that some central aspects of Catholic doctrine were inconsistent with my belief in what Christ taught. I also came to the conclusion that the human institution of the Catholic church had become too caught up in its own internal political issues and had lost sight of its fundamental purpose of fostering the relationship between a people and their God.
BUT - I do not believe that the Cathloic church is all wrong. And it remains a religious institution that should be free to pursue its understanding of faith, as should any other church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. What happened to Rep. Flockhart (whose political views I would likely support) is that she was asked to leave her position within the church -- not her position as a political leader. This is a very important distinction. Without commenting on the way the way the message was delivered to her, it was an entirely defensible step for the church to have taken. The church was not seeking to influence her politics - rather, it was asking that her politics not be permitted to overly influence the church. Separation of church and state means that religion should not be permitted to have undue (at least overt) influence over political institutions. But it does not mean that religious institutions must conform their behavior to prevailing political ideas (provided that the religious institution is not running afoul of criminal statutues). So -- knowlingly permitting sexual abuse of minors would be a crime, but asking someone to leave their position within the church is neither a crime nor is it at all in violation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. To take a trivial example, a sports fan club, like a Red Sox fan club, would never allow an avowed Yankee fan to be a leader within the organization. Even if the Yankee fan was a loyal and knowledgeable student of baseball, we would expect him or her to be a leader in a Yankee fan club...or a club committed to non-partisan baseball appreciation. And we wouldn't think that the Red Sox club that asked the Yankee fan to step down as a leader was somehow trying to improperly influence the entire baseball world. So why should a religious institution be expected to permit its own leadership to take positions that are publicly at odds with matters the institution thinks are central to its faith?
While I disagree with the Catholic church on many matters of faith, I think that progress, even in matters of faith, comes from the clash of ideas. So let the Catholic church teach its doctrine as it understands it! And if you do not agree with the Catholic church's teachings, leave!! You're really not Catholic anyway -- that's the conclusion I came to about myself anyway. There are many welcoming Christian communities out there in which you can practice and celebrate your faith without having to navigate through so many rocks of hypocricy. In the end, if enough people leave the Catholic church, it will be forced to confront its issues like any other institution. But do not expect a religious institution to accommodate your political views -- it has no obligation to and I, for one, would be very worried if our political insitutions started dictating what our houses of worship had to teach.
One of the problems, I think, is that being Catholic has become intertwined, for many people, with their cultural heritage. So, just as one might be an Irish-American, to take my example, by birthright, people also begin to think of themselves as Cathloic by birthright. Yet faith, unlike cultural heritage, is not a product of who your parents were ot where you were born. Separating yourself from the church may be difficult when family and cultural bonds are involved, but if your personal faith drives your political views (as it should) and you nonetheless expect the Catholic church to accommodate your political views even where your faith is at odds with the church's teaching, then you're being a traitor to your own faith and at the same time are really just treating the church like a social club.

M.E. 1:43pm; Frederick 2:08pm; C-Man; JV2:36; Brendan:

M.E.:

You think that the Old testament is mostly one man, several women; but it begins with the ideal, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. You quote the Catholic Moral Tradition, but that tradition is found in the teaching of the Popes and the Councils. For instance, all you who think Vatican II was revolutionary, try Gaudium et Spes 48, which states: "Thus the man and the woman, who are no longer two but one (MT19:6), help and serve each other by their their marital partnership;" This document was written in 1965, not the middle ages, and all the surrounding paragraphs assume a man and a woman, for the purposes of procreation. In pp. 47, and elsewhere, Gaudium et Spes, considered by some the most liberal document of Vatican II, decries "unlawful contraception." M. E., you are trying to invent your own catholic moral tradition.

Frederick 2:08pm: You are wrong, this thread started out as whether a Catholic legislator was in good standing in the Church if she were in favor of abortion and gay marriage. No ONe, But NO One, is trying to establish a theocracy as you allege, so that is a bogus, red-herring, illogical argument. Catholics and others are PRO-posing, not imposing, their understanding of what marriage is, based on what marriage was understood to be at the time of the founding of our nation. The Founders' understanding was based on the Judaeo-Christian, Greco-Roman tradition of about 3000 years. if you have good reason to overthrow that tradition, fine; we have a wonderful mechanism for that, it is called the amendment process.

C-Man: You bring up John F. Kennedy, but he as a multiple philanderer, almost getting us into nuclear war over Cuba, and getting us into Vietnam, is not a very convincing argument for your side. In fact, it reminds me of a 47 year old senator with very little senatorial experience, charismatic, from a minority group......

JV: You complain about the Bible vis a vis the constitution, but at the time the constitution was ratified, far more people had read and understood and appreciated the Bible than the Constitution. The Constitution must be read in the context of the Bible. The Declaration of Independence speaks of inalienable rights given by the Creator; which Creator do you think they were talking about, the Creator of Buddhism or Islam?

Brendan, as mentioned above, neither the Church nor any of its leaders or members is trying to FORCE its thoughts on the public. If so, it didn't do a very good job last Tuesday. The Church, like NARAL, like ACLU, like the Globe and the Times, etc. throws its best opinions into the democratic ring for the common good as we Catholics see it; if accepted, great. If not,so much the worse for US society, with a million kids aborted each year: how many Beethovens, Einsteins, Mother Theresa's, Michael Jordans, Barack Obama's, Tiger Woods, etc., who could have glorified our country, were sent literally down the drain? ;(

In our political climate of democracy and compromise, we work very hard to change other's view in the organizations of which we are a part. Unfortunately, for the the non-clergy within the Roman Catholic church, we do (or did, in my case) not have a voice at the table. We were told to accept the teachings of the church. However, it was seeing clergy who were homosexual, but preaching against it, and separately, pedophiles abusing children in their care, that told me that I could not be a hypocrite and remain within the Church when I could not support its teachings.

However, while Eileen Flockhart might be removed from a position, can you imagine Cardinal O'Malley denying the sacraments to Ted Kennedy? I doubt it. Ted wouldn't leave the church, either, to uphold his principles.

If the truth were told, the Church would excommunicate Ted, or Ted would leave the church that is incompatible with his beliefs on certain matters. Neither will happen. Leaving the church is a difficult thing.

I did. My family now attends a United Church of Christ church, where being an open and affirming church is important. Gays and Lesbians are welcomed. And no one presses me to vote for politicians that support the views of a church hierarchy. I found a church compatible with my values of tolerance and inclusion.

Come on in, the water's fine.

"gaudete" and "MB" ... Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you, the all too typical hate mongering Christian. Their ironclad belief in Jesus' resurrection, walking on water, etc. were camcordable events gives them "license to ill" - that is, spew rabid hatred at anyone who disagrees with them religiously or politically. Thanks for sharing who and what you are.

Dan asks: “If simplicity is the mark of a third-rate mind, then does that make God mediocre in His Simplicity?” I was assuming that the mind of God was unknowable and that I would therefore only be discussing human thoughts. I would note, however, that simplicity is not the ultimate quality of God; if it were, there would be no Trinity. The Trinity argues that at the highest level of being there is multiplicity and complexity even while there is simultaneously unity. As for what God thinks, I have no clue, I am not privy to his thoughts. As for how God exists, it is as a complex relationship.

Justathought says: “And if you do not agree with the Catholic church's teachings, leave!! You're really not Catholic anyway -- that's the conclusion I came to about myself anyway.” There is a hierarchy of truths. Some truths are essential to the Catholic faith and some are not. You might be able to see this in your own experience. The statements “the sky is blue” and “I love you son” may both be true, but one is clearly a more important kind of truth than the other. So there are doctrines that are more central to Catholic faith than others. The Incarnation, the Trinity, Transubstantiation and the sacraments are very central. General moral principles are also very important: sex matters, killing is wrong, stealing is bad. But in moving from the general to the specific more and more legitimate room for debate and discernment becomes apparent. Killing is wrong, but is all war wrong? There is room for legitimate debate.

Gaudete says: “it begins with the ideal, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” The Bible, like any document, is a product of it’s historical context. Also, I’m not sure that the Bible ever says Adam ever married Eve… Certainly they didn’t get married in Church, they just sort of became “one flesh.
Gaudete states: “The Founders' understanding was based on the Judaeo-Christian, Greco-Roman tradition of about 3000 years.” The founders were by in large men of the Enlightenment, and therefore Deists, not Christians. Speaking of Greco-Romans, by the way, you know all those Greek vases which are so revered today? That’s not leapfrog those boys are playing on them…I don’t think you want to appeal to the Greeks for arguments against homosexuality... As for basing the institution of marriage on the 18th century understanding of social institutions, one might note that many of the founding fathers would support slavery, so it’s maybe not the best idea to appeal to those folks…
Gaudete also asks: “The Declaration of Independence speaks of inalienable rights given by the Creator; which Creator do you think they were talking about, the Creator of Buddhism or Islam?” This is an excellent question. Indeed it was not the creator of Buddhism and probably not of Islam but neither was it the creator of Christian theology. It was instead the “clockmaker” god, a god who created the world and had no further contact with it.
Gaudete argues: “M. E., you are trying to invent your own catholic moral tradition.” An interesting take. Actually, my intent, although I may be unsuccessful at it, is to try to access the whole of the catholic moral tradition, to show where it conflicts with itself, and to use reason guided by faith to construct an interpretation of that tradition which is faithful to its most important aspects. And I would add that for every Mother Theresa who is aborted there is probably another Stalin aborted. Abortion is wrong based on principle, not on result.

Pray 4 Coulter Christians says: “Their ironclad belief in Jesus' resurrection, walking on water, etc. were camcordable events gives them "license to ill"”. I would be careful about drawing too strong a connection between a belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus and religious intolerance, as I believe in the resurrection of the body but do not consider myself particularly intolerant…although perhaps I deceive myself?

As for those who say that anyone who does not believe every teaching of the hierarchy is as a result a heretic would do well to examine the cases of deLubac, Rahner, Congar and others who thought differently than the hierarchy until the hierarchy came to agree with them. I would also note that the writings of Thomas Aquinas were condemned until 2 years after his canonization.