"Catholic Vote" contributor Carson Holloway:
I would like to emphasize one sentence in particular (as did Kristol), but I guess that my point has the most in common with Buchanan’s. Here is the president’s more or less open call for same-sex marriage: “Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to each other must be equal as well.”
At the moment I am not interested in Obama’s specific argument, his call to redefine marriage, although that is certainly a matter of concern. Rather, what bothers me here is the way in which Obama uses the Declaration of Independence and attempts to transfigure it into something entirely new, and something on the basis of which there can be endless, unpredictable transformation of American society.
It seems to me that Obama’s effort is to move equality front and center and dispense with any concern with what is right or just by nature.
Untethered from any substantive account of human nature, a commitment to “equality” opens the door to who-knows-what series of endless transformations of society. No one can say what new inequality this kind of liberalism will become preoccupied with next and turn the power of the state to abolishing, whatever the costs to traditional institutional arrangements.
There's more, if you can stomach it.
It isn't only that this group exists- while using "Catholic" as if somehow representing the Church. It's far more serious because this group wields considerable leverage in the U.S. Church. One of the better-known commentators, Thomas Peters, is also employed by the National Organization for Marriage (which is supported monetarily by many Roman Catholic dioceses). His father- who also blogs- is a canon lawyer for the Archdiocese of Detroit. Thomas Peters is invited by bishops to speak at official diocesan events.
Back to Holloway's piece. Because he does not believe that gay people "fit" in his concept of "natural law" he advocates our exclusion from the protections laid out in the Declaration of Independence.
(Scared yet?)
It's this kind of rhetoric that keeps gay Catholics marginalized within (or without) the Church. This isn't simply the writings of an opinionated lay person-- the whole enterprise is implicitly and explicitly supported by many bishops in the U.S.
No wonder "good Catholics" think it's OK to call me a fag in the comments section on my blog.
Pax et bonum
It's not OK to disparage anyone this way and, I think, we're clear on this.
ReplyDeleteIf the CatholicVote website is a thinly-veiled front to push GOP politicians and issues, then sites like yours, or Vox Nova, are, more or less, the same for the Democratic Party and their issues. Is it wrong because they mix religion and politics, or is it because they mix religion with politics you don't agree with?
If the dignity of gay people rests with the ability to be formally recognized by the state as married, then what about those who don't want to get married, even if they can get married?
The Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution protects people in general, but neither of them says anything about marriage, so you're not excluded from anything, unless you interpret your conditions as an exclusion.
Mr. Holloway is right that this paradigm of thinking may lead to other transformations of society as anyone can claim his feelings as hurt due to this or that.
It's true that gay Catholics are marginalized, but they're the ones to be blamed here. I know, it's politically incorrect to say that, but it's true. If you try to be a part of two different and hostile toward each other groups, then you're suspicious to both, and you can be attacked by both.
My blog is just a place for me to air my thoughts, and to share them with anyone interested. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't receive payment, and I'm certainly not invited to speak anywhere.
DeleteI think you understand my problem with the CV post, seeing as you're a lawyer and all.
Frankly, I don't, because I agree with what it says. And, are you jealous that Thomas Peters blogs and is paid for it, or that he's invited to speak? Maybe there's something wrong with you, and not with him?
DeleteI'm not at all jealous.
DeleteGood to hear that :)
DeleteI my opinion, there is a deep tension between what the Church says about our gay persons in documents like the USCCB's Ministry's to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination....and how they are actually treated by the Church. And while I'm not necessarily advocating any particular change, it seems we need to be asking ourselves why that is before we start yelling from the roof tops.
ReplyDeleteSo no, the Catholic Vote article is not helpful to the Church. Nor is our massive push to engage the public sphere on these hot button issues. Maybe it is a distraction from getting our own house in order. What real credibility do we have with non- Catholics on marriage issues or health care stuff, if we divorce at the same rate, use contraception at the same rate, have abortions at the same rate as the general population? I scan Catholic Vote looking for calls for interior renewal...it seems to be all about legislation.
"Maybe it is a distraction from getting our own house in order."
DeleteI agree 100%, Brian.
Do these folks have any argument that isn't based on the slippery slope or a Renaissance era misreading of natural law?
ReplyDeleteI think the statement about Obama and the Declaration of Independence makes no sense here. Come to think of it, the criticism of Obama utilizing the Declaration of Independence to defend equality, while stating that the real issue is that he might interpret the Declaration incorrectly in other areas (without discussing the area they disagree with) because of his concern for equality, is a logic pretzel.
Perhaps I am confused by their statement because the Declaration does not utilize the notion of Natural Law that they are utilizing? Catholic's utilize an understanding of Natural Law that presumes God is interacting with all creation as an active participant. Thomas Jefferson thought God wound up the universe and went bowling.
Or maybe, just maybe, they really have no argument at all and are making this up as they go along?
"Do these folks have any argument that isn't based on the slippery slope or a Renaissance era misreading of natural law?"
DeleteNope. They don't.
And what kind of arguments do gay advocates have? Solely based on emotions and nothing else.
DeleteGeneral clauses such as all men are created equal may mean everything and nothing at the same time. If you or anyone invoke the Declaration of Independence as a reason for gay marriage, then you should ask: would the author of this document include gays if they were asked what did they mean when they wrote it? I'm pretty sure they didn't think about gays or the gay marriage. Therefore Mr. Holloway is correct when he writes, that "bothers me here is the way in which Obama uses the Declaration of Independence and attempts to transfigure it into something entirely new, and something on the basis of which there can be endless, unpredictable transformation of American society."
"Emotions and nothing else."
DeleteMedicine, psychology, psychiatry, and sociology have all contributed to current thought- not emotion only.
No, they did not, and they constantly fail to prove any gay theories. What you call science isn't in any meaningful scientific. And recently, research conducted among indigenous inhabitants of Africa caused another blow to the gay propaganda - they have no concept of homosexuality whatsoever and have no idea what it is - and it might prove why many Africans say that the Arabs coming to Africa brought homosexuality with them as totally alien to them.
DeleteSo Thom, what would the Founding Fathers do/say about gay marriage, huh?
They'd ask a Polish lawyer, of course.
DeleteI know, an American librarian is a better choice.
DeleteAt least, as an American, I have a horse in this particular race.
DeleteWho knew... But you still failed to answer an obviously uncomfortable question. And, even if you have a horse in this race, you have very little knowledge or understanding of things you want argue about.
Deletehttp://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/25/obama-highjacking-the-american-revolution/
ReplyDeleteAs soon as I saw "Buchanan" I stopped reading.
DeleteThat was open-minded and tolerant and accepting of you. Too bad. In it he explains why Stonewall isn't the same as Selma and Seneca Falls.
DeleteI read a lot, and I prioritize what I read. That man's opinions don't have a reserved spot.
Delete