Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Bishop Gets it Right
From the statement by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The Court is indeed wrong again.
Published in General, Law, Marriage
Thanks, Peter.
I don’t know if you listen (you should!) to our member-podcast, but my comment was that I look forward to listening to Richard and John talk about the Supreme Court to make me feel better. I was actually somewhat encouraged (oddly) by what Richard said on the Flagship yesterday. Essentially, that what the court is opting to do is be deferential. Now, I entirely disagree with the court’s analysis, and yes I think it is dangerous, and yes I am somewhat angry about all of the rulings… but at the same time, isn’t morality really a social question in the end? I don’t expect to be encouraged by a court that takes my side if society remains unconvinced by my arguments. I agree with Rob that it is Ricochet that will save the world, and we shouldn’t put our faith in the exalted 9. Discussion and reasoning are our allies when the court is not.
You agree with Rob? Ryan, Ryan, stop right there!
Those that hold the bishops view are free to not get gay married. On the otherhand those who don’t will have it as an option. A win for freedom.
I suspect Kennedy will be essentially excommunicated. The Archbishop states that:
It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
Likely that Kennedy has forfeited his right (I use that term advisedly) to receive communion. This will be a public spectacle and will trigger a backlash against the Church. I can hear it now: “Homophobic Catholic Bishops kick Kennedy out for being a good guy.”
Peter & all,
This is a copy of my comment on the previous post.
To all,
This is the central fallacy of the argument. The reason that Marriage is unlike any other two person union in its importance is that it includes the potential for procreation. Only Heterosexual Monogamy qualifies as Marriage for this very reason. Without Heterosexual Monogamy there is no reason for Marriage to exist in the first place. Contract law would be sufficient and is sufficient to handle the needs of same sex relationships.
What the Supreme Court has done is proven that it doesn’t understand what Marriage is. As their decision on the ACA proved that the Supreme Court doesn’t understand English, I am not at all surprised by this ruling.
Regards,
Jim
It’s hardly “a win for freedom” when the Supreme Court arrogates the power to itself to overturn democratically-enacted laws in state after state–and does so with such utter disregard for the Constitution that it calls into question the whole ordered structure of the Republic that makes liberty possible.
It is a pastoral decision. The Church formally declares abortion, for example, a mortal sin and advocacy for abortion similarly so. But it is for one’s own local bishop to make the prudential judgment of one’s level of understanding and general respect for Christ in the Eucharist. It is the authority of God’s chosen shepherds, after all, to “bind” and “loose” earthly expectations in the difficult challenge of balancing justice and mercy.
That said, American bishops have typically chosen to “loose” in regard to abortion advocacy. So I expect the same here.
Once the bishops experience further encroachments by government, perhaps not. They are silly, stubborn human beings like us, in the end.
Incidentally, it was Archbishop Kurtz who was interviewed on Raymond Arroyo’s show this past week and gave a rather poor defense of the Pope’s encyclical. It was poor because it seemed more political than pastoral (talking points without any acknowledgment of the encyclical’s errors).
Indeed it does.
… and Herbert, you are well aware of the actual issues at stake. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed, and I don’t think for a minute that you weren’t paying any attention at all. It is a win for some freedoms at the expense of others, and I’ll accept that you prefer the outcome. But to say that it is an expansion of freedom is flatly incorrect.
Why are conservatives getting upset? Don’t you realize that just like the Ex Im Bank, Obamacare, cutting the military to dangerously low levels, safeguarding data from cyberattacks, unionizing agencies explicitly forbidden from unionizing, the TPA, Iran having nukes, ISIS, illegal immigration, nationalizing healthcare, and an 18 trillion dollar debt this isn’t the hill to die on?
As Republicans, let’s focus on what’s really important: winning 2016 so we can keep capital gains taxes low and expand tax credits to our favored constituencies.
Thank you for fielding this one Peter.
And you Ryan.
I was about to blow my top.
For social/cultural conservatives it is the hill to die on. I am much more concerned with the redistribution of the social capital than I am with economic redistribution. All the riches in the world will mean nothing if the culture collapses. We already have an enormous social/cultural deficit. This decision adds trillions in that debt.
Peter Robinson takes an unambiguous, unqualified passionate stand on something rather than pointing to something someone else said and asking the community, “What do you think?”
There is something to be reassured about today after all.
Amen Archbishop Kurtz. I stand with you.
There was so much sugary talk in the majority opinion about the importance of love and acceptance, I wonder if that’s a prerequisite for marriage now?
Will we have to write sonnets to our betrothed to get a license to marry?
Life was simpler when they just tested you for syphilis.
and for blood relations. I remember having to sign that my wife was not my cousin.
Yes–that is interesting, isn’t it Tommy? How is the law to determine this sort of thing? Scalia’s paper bag comment is very cogent.
I was attempting to be sarcastic and apparently it didn’t come through. I have no doubt that the “not the hill to die on” argument will be employed soon however.
AMEN. We are eating through our social capital at an alarming rate. Today’s decision will accelerate it.
The LGBT-Etc extremist lobby is loving this royal decree, but it is only about eliminating freedom, not either addition or subtraction of same, pace Ryan and Herbert. Government is not the source of freedom, despite its proclamations to the contrary. This is about the government forcing adherence to immorality by denying our religious freedom as guaranteed in the constitution, and by redefining marriage to be a secular arrangement only.
The logical consequences of this insanity are what’s really troubling. The black-robed masters who answer to no voter have invaded state-level sovereignty and used yet another farfetched interpretation of the 14th amendment to trash the 10th. Now that marriage is a civil, constitutional “right”, get ready for the battle to extend well beyond the Oregon baker’s $150,ooo fine for not bowing to this latest perversion of our sacred Judeo-Christian culture. How long will it be until a gay couple sues the Catholic church for not honoring their new right?
Truth and justice may eventually prevail, but in the interim, many people will be damaged.
What has not been addressed in the conversation yet is the consequence that there is now no state in the United States to which a person who holds my views (that homosexual marriage is wrong) can move to, allowing that I may not choose to live in a place like New York or Seattle or San Francisco. Today’s SCOTUS ruling applies in all 50 states.
Furthermore, the gay lobby is already proposing that churches which do not recognize and sanction homosexual marriage ought to lose their tax-exempt status. In doing so, they tip their hand that such has been the real point all along: to achieve societal sanction of their lifestyle preferences by force of law and the state.
and Herbert, you are well aware of the actual issues at stake. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed, and I don’t think for a minute that you weren’t paying any attention at all. It is a win for some freedoms at the expense of others, and I’ll accept that you prefer the outcome. But to say that it is an expansion of freedom is flatly incorrect…
The expense to others being what? Now that gay marriage will be recognized nationwide. My life is changed in what way? The knowledge that Bob and John down the street will now have a state recognized marriage? My freedom has hardly been diminished.
Five members of the Supreme court deserved to be impeached. They refuse to hold to what the constitution says and in so doing are guilty of at least misdemeanors. I can believe that politicians or the public can desire an outcome that is different than what the law currently says, but it is their duty to uphold the law. If they cannot they need to be thrown out of office.
All about Herbert…
It’s hardly “a win for freedom” when the Supreme Court arrogates the power to itself to overturn democratically-enacted laws in state after state–and does so with such utter disregard for the Constitution that it calls into question the whole ordered structure of the Republic that makes liberty possible….
Let’s just blot out the fourteenth amendment and pretend it doesn’t exist.
All about Herbert…
Well others actually meant ‘others’, but I understand result to personalia when you have nothing else..
Would rescinding the law about driving on the right side of the road be a win for freedom?
We ought only to blot out that our government is imposing its will upon us.
Well… not Herbert.
Marriage is about economics and about children. So in this case, it is just about economics. Regarding love, no one would get married if it was JUST about love.