As Guam debates legislation recognizing same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church appears to have reached out to some strange sources of support in its opposition: Islamic terrorists. In a letter being circulated from the Archdiocese of Agaña, Catholics are told that Islamic extremists may engage in suicide bombings but that they at least “value self sacrifice” and punish homosexuals with death. In a second letter without the Al Qaeda angle, Guam Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron still insists that homosexuality is dangerous, unhealthy, and immoral. He further adds a constitutional point of interest: saying that “the first amendment of the United States does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion.”
The legislation in Guam has attracted a surprising degree of support – and a surprising degree of anger from the Church. It was introduced by an openly gay senator, B.J. Cruz who claims to be a victim of Catholic clergy abuse.
One letter purportedly from the Church included this remarkable statement:
“Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers…is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice
It further says that the passage of the bill will herald the “end to Western Civilization.”
For the full letter, click here
It is not clear who is the author of that letter. The letter bears the symbol of the church, which has not denied its contents. However, it is not clear if this widely circulated letter was condoned by the leadership of the Church.
The Archbishop is the author of a second letter that contains some of the same dire warnings but without the citation to the faith of Islamic terrorists. It states that the legislation would put even Guam’s right of self-government in question. If passed, he states, the bill “will forfeit its moral authority to continue to govern this island and be “doubly destructive because it encourages a lifestyle that is intrinsically unhealthy.”
He insists that “every humanly-created law is legitimate only insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.”
His statement that the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” is itself interesting. This adopts the narrowest view of the religion clauses and, if accepted by the Supreme Court, would result in the wholesale rejection of many, if not most, of our entanglement cases. It is a view espoused by some conservative scholars but long rejected by the Court. If the first amendment “does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion” than presumably states could become more involved in supporting religions generally and allow greater displays of faith in government buildings and classrooms.
With the recent announcement of the absorption of Anglican priests leaving that church over homosexuality (including marriage priests who will now be part of the Catholic Church), Rome is clearly reaffirming that it is entrenched on the issue of homosexuality — which will define much of the internal and external politics of the Church.
AY/Byron:
You both might be interested to know that Cicero’s works greatly influence Jefferson as he built the American republic.# Roman influences on our form of government (even our temples of government) are manifest, and Cicero would have been quite comfortable operating in our time.
Cicero placed much of the blame* for the fall of the Roman Republic on the corruption of the landed Roman aristocracy who comprised the Roman Senate. Always willing to align themselves with tyrannical elements in Rome for a price, these corrupt politicians were propped up by centuries old laws maintaining their family’s assets and power.
Jefferson, taking Cicero’s warnings to heart, set about to curtail the elitist notion of aristocracy and replace it with an aristocracy of merit. One of his first acts following the adoption of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 was to introduce two bills in the Virginia House of Delegates to abolish the common law rights of entails and primogeniture. These restrictions on transfer of real property and inheritances served to found what Jefferson called a “Patrician Order,” which if left to their own devices, would turn gradual accumulation of wealth and power into tyranny based upon a sense of entitlement, corruption, and greed (sounding modern yet?).
I have no doubt that old Roman consul Cicero would have been proud of his young intellectual ward’s efforts to preserve what would be the new Roman republic on our shores. Religious skepticism keeps me from considering that some of the “ashu” of Cicero and Jefferson might pass into my karma, but it is pleasant to consider.
# Jefferson owned more than 40 titles of Cicero’s work with his favorite being “Tusculan Disputations.” Some scholars say he modeled his lifestyle after the great Roman.
* He was no fan of Julius Caesar either in this regard.
Byron,
I was looking at this again and I left out a couple of important issues. The second was freed by the first and when the first became governor then the second scribed while the first was away sometime in 4 bc. I think, I am correct.
With that said the accuracy of the seconds words attributed to the first is debatable in my mind. It is kind of like saying someone was Ceaser, well which one do you refer.
Some of these inane things (facts, which are questionable in my mind.)
I just recall and think that I am correct but I am too lazy to look it up to verify. Like right now.
Byron,
Do you mean Marcus Tullius Cicero or Marcus Tullius Tiro? Both of which were quite adept. One a Scribner and the other just a lawyer/politician/religious. One useful while the others character is debatable.
AY:
he is and Marcus Tulius too:)
mespo,
Are you Thom reincarnate?
“I have ever thought religion a concern purely between our god and our consciences, for which we were accountable to him, and not to the priests. I never told my own religion, nor scrutinised that of another. I never attempted to make a convert, nor wished to change another’s creed . . . it is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read.”
— Thos. Jefferson
(Letter to Mrs. M. Harrison Smith, August 6, 1816)
AY, If you Google Alan Grayson and click the ‘Video’ tab you can spend some VERY entertaining time this afternoon listening to some old school political debate/rhetoric. He visits The Situaation Room and owns it from the get go. You’ll like his style.
rafflaw,
AY,
Friction and motion, eh??? I never considered that a subject while in college, but that is one course I could have passed.
*********************
How about A&P (Anatomy and Physiology by Braille.) was that a subject offered at your college? That was a good one to learn. It was usually taught late in evening or early morning. Sometime during the day too.
I fear for the safety of my children if they meet someone like me.
AY-
Respresentative Alan Grayson, Democrat rep. from Orlanda, Fl.
He of the (not direct quote): ‘The Repulican health care plan is to not get sick. If you do get sick, die quickly.’
When asked to apologize, he apologized to all of those who have died because of our crappy system. YouTube is my friend!
AY,
Friction and motion, eh??? I never considered that a subject while in college, but that is one course I could have passed.
rafflaw,
I think that the “Studio’s” were kinda funny when they refused the other titles considered for the show under the guise of censorship. This one slid through and no one had a clue or was the wiser for it.
Paul Henning’s daughter Linda Kaye the youngest one I believe Betty Jo was her name was my favorite. Then I learned all about the girl next door symbolism.
Furthermore, I love words and the interplay among them. As I have stated once before here I took a class as an elective, oh stupid me, never did that again the same way. It was called linguistics and I learned all sort of crap that I never thought would be useful. Well it has turned out to be.
I guess I have raised some sick children too. I was talking to my 15 year old last night and I asked her what her favorite subject was in High School and she had the Gaul to tell me it was physics. Hell at 15, I did not know what that was, nor did I care. I was learning about kinetics and friction in motion. After all it was the early 70’s
I did learn some great words though and one was symbiotic’s oh what a sick puppy I still am.
But for those not in the know, here is what it means.
sɪmbiˈoʊsɪs, -baɪ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sim-bee-oh-sis, -bahy-]
1. Biology.
a. the living together of two dissimilar organisms, as in mutualism, commensalism, amensalism, or parasitism.
b. (formerly) mutualism (def. 1).
2. Psychiatry. a relationship between two people in which each person is dependent upon and receives reinforcement, whether beneficial or detrimental, from the other.
3. Psychoanalysis. the relationship between an infant and its mother in which the infant is dependent on the mother both physically and emotionally.
4. any interdependent or mutually beneficial relationship between two persons, groups, etc.
This is what I like about the blawg
“Senator Cruz, who claims to be a victim of catholic clergy abuse” has sponsored the bill to recognize same-sex marriage and should be leading the debate for it needs to respond unequivocally, in the manner of Alan Grayson, to the Church’s’ opposition to the bill. It isn’t as if Senator Cruz doesn’t have a millennium of Church history (as well as his own history with the Church) to cite as argument against the Church’s’ position and hypocrisy regarding a civil rights issue.
I for one am tired of politicians soft peddling debate or criticism when ‘The Church’, or any religious group of note weighs in on a matter of secular policy. Churches should be cast as no more or less than any other special interest group pursuing self-serving policies in the political arena.
AY,
I loved your reference to Petticoat Junction! We used to discuss that interesting BJ connection in College. This posting about the Catholic Bishop and his wild claims is just one more example why we must have the separation of Church and State. This clergyman’s view of the Constitution is not only skewed, it is dangerous. This is the American Taliban in the making.
lottakatz,
Senator Cruz needs to go all Grayson on the Church IMO, the truth is after all an absolute defense.
****************
Can you help tell me what this means?
This strange ally reminds me of a story I read about Petticoat Junction. Paul Henning the Producer could not get approval for the show and he was getting quite upset. So he finally took the studio to task and sold it as Petticoat Junction.
If you recall the opening credit showed the girls in the water tower, heads bobbing up and down. (The Tower was water for the train) They were going to the “Shady Rest” “Hooterville” etc but all three girls Initials were B.J., Betty Jo, Bobby Jo and Billy Jo.
I just think that it is kinda of humorous as this was slid through in the 60’s as a family show. which I will admit, I enjoyed as much as watching Linda Evan’s in that western show. Golly, she is or was beautiful. I think it was the Big Valley….
From article: “every humanly-created law is legitimate only insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.”
—-
Except of course the civil and human rights of gay persons. This Archbishop has his head so far up in the clouds that he is making a self-contradictory argument. He obviously has no sense of irony, or shame.
++++
From article: “doubly destructive because it encourages a lifestyle that is intrinsically unhealthy.”
—-
And a male only organization that by it’s rules fosters life-long sexual repression and institutionalized opportunistic sexual predation (primarily on children) is a healthy lifestyle? LOL.
Senator Cruz needs to go all Grayson on the Church IMO, the truth is after all an absolute defense.
It was introduced by an openly gay senator, B.J. Cruz….
Do you think this is posted on the wrong thread. I believe that some people were complaining about being the only straight couple aboard…..
I wonder if he listens to Rush Limbaugh who recently agreed with the Taliban and Hamas on several issues?
“People are strange when you’re a stranger … women seem wicked when you’re alone …” (Doors)
“He [Archbishop Anthony Sablan Apuron] further adds a constitutional point of interest: saying that “the first amendment of the United States does no more than simply forbid the establishment of the state religion.”
***********
I won’t critique his Church’s incredible position on parthenogenesis, if he won’t attempt to critique my Country’s long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment.
“Islamic fundamentalists clearly understand the damage that homosexual behavior inflicts on a culture. This is why they repress such behavior by death…It may be brutal at times, but any culture that is able to produce wave after wave of suicide bombers…is a culture that at least knows how to value self sacrifice.”
************
To any serious student of Church history, these contemporary words will come as no surprise. A Church built on human sacrifice and bloody disdain for anything approaching a position contrary to its orthodoxy will surely find support in –and express admiration for–the religious extremism (and scourge) of our time. As the Turks say, “It’s kismet.”