By Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
It’s Sunday and I made a rare visit to church today here in Richmond to test the waters after Judge Arenda Wright Allen’s historic ruling overturning Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. I was curious because the two Roman Catholic Bishops in Virginia had taken a keen interest in gay marriage ever since newly elected Attorney General Mark Herring had declined to defend the state’s ban on the practice in Bostic v. Rainey and after Governor Terry McAuliffe had refused to appoint a special counsel to take over the defense of the ban. The two presiding bishops in Virginia, Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde and Richmond Bishop Francis DiLorenzo, had issued a joint statement vowing to soldier on against the right of gays to marry. The good bishops instructed that:
“No politician should be able to reverse the people’s decision … We call on the attorney general to do the job he was elected to perform, which is to defend the state laws he agrees with, as well as those state laws with which he personally disagrees.”
After the Valentine’s Day decision, the bishops issued a new statement opining that Judge Wright Allen’s ruling violated the Commonwealth’s right to define “marriage” however it wishes under that rubric of neo-cons everywhere, the hoary 10th Amendment. The good shepherds went on to offer their assessment of Virginia’s first African-American female federal judge:
Judge Wright Allen’s decision also, more fundamentally, contradicts the wisdom and understanding of the ages. It strips marriage of its intrinsic meaning and converts it into nothing more than an arrangement that recognizes a voluntary relationship between any two consenting adults. While all people should have the freedom to form attachments and relationships as they wish, the union of a man and a woman, in marriage, makes a unique contribution to the creation, protection and well-being of children. It is more than a “consenting relationship.” It is a union that – alone and uniquely – unites the two complementary halves of humanity, a man and a woman, to cooperate with the Author of Life to create new life. It is a union that alone provides children the opportunity to be nurtured and to learn from both a mother and a father, each of whom brings unique gifts to the family, the fundamental building block of society.
The bishops, echoing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, say the case will forever alter the very definition of marriage. And of course it would from their perspective … at least to this current crop of American bishops it would. But judicial rewriting of the notion of marriage hasn’t always scared the Conference or raised issues of states’ rights. “Interracial marriages do not constitute a threat to the ‘principles of government’ made manifest in the United States Constitution,” several American bishops — and four archbishops — argued in a 1967 brief filed in support of Mildred and Richard Loving’s right to marry. Thus the term is not so immutable as the current bishops argue — and the proof is found in their own history.
Our parish priest, Fr. Mike, is an affable fellow from eastern Pennsylvania who is literally the poster boy for vocations in the diocese. He’s an accomplished speaker by most assessments even though I find his jokes a tad corny and predictable, and his analysis of church doctrine is … well … usually a little too doctrinaire for my liking. Still, I was wondering if he was going to make any comment about the case or simply give the canned homily about love, forgiveness and the church’s role in promoting both.
I suppose the word was out and the bishops had made their wishes known because the first few words out of his mouth were about the case. Calling the decision “insanity,” this priest went on to state the party line that the decision would change the very definition of marriage. He called the judge’s opinion “foolishness” and described her exercise of the judicial function as ignoring what most Virginians wanted marriage to be despite recent polling to the contrary. He even juxtaposed the angry reaction to the decision by some with the display of anger of a Pennsylvania man who brandished a gun when a snow plow pushed snow onto a driveway he had just shoveled. He condoned neither.
But then the priest did a curious thing and departed from the party line. Rather than rail about the decision in some fire and brimstone way so as to chastise its proponents as I’m sure his superiors wanted, this thoughtful fellow asked the uncomfortable question every movement has to ask itself. No, not the obvious “Why won’t the [non-believers] listen to us?,” but rather “Why should [non-believers] listen to us?”
By that he meant what should non-believers make of the fact that so many Catholics act and react exactly the way that non-Catholics do in regards to marriage (Catholic have about the same divorce rate as non-Catholics) and anger (Ever been to a football game between two Catholic colleges?). He even acknowledged in one of the great euphemisms of all time, that the Church undermined its position as arbiter or morals when it did “a terrible job of taking care of the children” entrusted to its care. Of course, he went on to say that the Church, despite the apparent hypocrisy (he never used that term, however), was still important since it had the Gospel as its foundation. However, the implied point was made — at least to me — that this one priest was beginning to see just how non-believers (and a great many believers) have come to view the Roman Church and the utter failure of its moral authority. That’s moral growth in my book.
To remedy this perception, the priest suggested that clergy and laity alike live a life of example of what is good about religion — its compassion and commitment to human relationships like marriage and child rearing. I was struck that he said this with no visual sign of the irony of decrying a legal decision that embodied both. I like to think he understood the contradiction and was wrestling with the moral challenge in his own mind.
I think many churchmen have a moral struggle raging in their brains. Can I believe only what the Church teaches despite its obvious human cost to gay parishioners? Am I compelled by my profession to espouse positions that my intellect, at the very least, tells me is questionable or, at most, finds to be incredible?
I think that moral dilemma is real and pervasive. There is a program sponsored in part by atheist writer Richard Dawkins and his Foundation for Reason and Science. Known as The Clergy Project, it’s purpose is to provide a “safe haven” for those members of the clergy who wish to move beyond the supernatural beliefs of their job and quit towing the party line. It offers counseling and guidance for those people who have lost their faith in the structure of their religion but not necessarily its spiritual goals.
Here is part of the testimonial from John Compere, PhD who lost his faith but not his interest in the spiritual:
I was a fifth-generation Baptist minister, ordained at age 18, while in college. I served until age 32 when I left the ministry and the church to get a PhD in Clinical Psychology. I had already completed a three-year seminary degree following college, which only increased my doubts about the authenticity of the theology I had learned from childhood. Leaving the ministry was not an easy decision to make since all my friends and family were in the church. But it was a decision I ultimately HAD to make if I didn’t want to risk being publicly phony and privately cynical. I became an agnostic, then an atheist, NOT because I hadn’t read the Bible, but because I had! An atheist, by the way, is simply someone who does not believe in a supernatural being. I am convinced that the evidence supports that view. All religion suffers from being bound by unchanging myth.
As a psychologist, I continued to try to help people find meaning in their lives. I taught at the university and medical school, had a private clinical practice, and then became a professional speaker on “Psychology You Can USE!” I seriously doubt that life has any ultimate meaning, but I’m convinced that we can make our own meaning, and I have spent the last 45 years since I left the ministry trying to help people do just that. Success is not the goal — all therapists have dealt with many a successful person who was miserable — life satisfaction is the goal.
I think we underestimate the struggle many religious leaders deal with in promoting ideas that do not stand up to their reasoning skills or which violate their own hard-wiring for compassion. We know now that even babies –without the sine qua non of religion, moral instruction — have intuitions which reveal to them societal mores concerning right and wrong. According to Paul Bloom, the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen professor of psychology at Yale University in his new book, Just Babies:
Humans are born with a hard-wired morality, a sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. I know this claim might sound outlandish, but it’s supported now by research in several laboratories. Babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others’ actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel compassion, guilt and righteous anger.
Which brings me back to today’s homily at St. Mary’s Parish. As I listened to our priest I had the distinct impression — without one iota of verifiable proof, mind you, just those intuitions formed long ago — that I was listening to a man who had serious misgivings about what he was saying. I thought he was obliquely apologizing for the hypocrisy that was ever so apparent from an institution railing against the homosexual lifestyle it perceives as immoral but failing to come to grips with the moral cesspool it had created for itself with lies, denial, and protecting the abominable acts of its priests. I thought that must be a terrible way to live one’s life — if that was truly what was going on.
As a lawyer and one dedicated to the victory of reason over religious intolerance, I thought I would leave church feeling angry about the homily I thought was sure to come. I walked out feeling a little sad.
Sources: The Clergy Project; CNN
~Mark Esposito, Weekend Contributor
Mespo,
There really aren’t people that really believe David, right? I hear in some Asian countries David would fit it just fine…..
davidm:
Pay attention and maybe you will learn something. … It would be perfectly legal for State legislatures to make robbers slaves to the people they robbed to pay back their debt.”
**************************
Ok, I give you the craziest take on the 13th Amendment Award. Thanks for the education but I’ll get back to reading the Peonage Act of 1867, whereby Congress abolished “the holding of any person to service or labor under the system known as peonage,” specifically banning “the voluntary or involuntary service or labor of any persons as peons, in liquidation of any debt or obligation, or otherwise.”
And I do learn something about your argument style most every time I talk to you — about pettifoggery.
mespo wrote: “the Peonage Act of 1867…”
There were several laws passed by Congress during the Reconstruction period that were not very good. The Peonage Act is one of those. IMO it reaches too far and violates the Constitution. When a conflict will arise between the Peonage Act and the Constitution, the Constitution must win.
DavidM,
I’m gonna bite at this one….. When all are treated equally under the law….. You might have a point….. But until then…. It’ll just be who has the best attorney….. Not equal under the law….. Or Do you think that the folks on Wall Street should be exempt….. Or that owners of mines that spill pollutants are just a cost of doing business…..??????
The days when we listened to (allegedly) celibate old men preach the most ridiculous things about human sexuality are pretty much over.
Mespo went to gander, not to be saved. Car crashes attract the curious, no doubt about it.
The real saving grace is the wicked authority behind the church has failed, and social media will assure it will never come back. Most of what church faces in the future will be bankruptcy.
Chuck:
Davidm thinks -A whenever we say A. It’s just in his nature.
Mespo,
Don’t forget that David is the one who thought bringing back flogging was a good idea, when I wrote the story about the subject.
Eleazer:
“When I read a misleading statement like “The Bible says slavery is right” from Mespo I shake my head ….”
************************
I bet your head will come off your neck when you realize the “Good Book” also specifically approves of selling your daughter into sexual slavery.
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Rcampbell,
The RCC itself has internal divisions. It is the (allegedly) celibate old gobblers at the top who are the problem.
David:
“What is immoral about servitude?
So you are saying that if a thief could not repay what he stole, that it would be immoral to make him a slave to the man from whom he stole?
I would argue that it would be better for society, for the victim of the crime, and for the criminal himself, to make him a slave to the person he robbed rather than waste taxpayer money by locking him up in prison.
And you know what? Our Constitution STILL allows for this type of slavery. We just don’t do it. Maybe you had better change the Thirteenth Amendment to our our U.S. Constitution before you start calling this type of slavery immoral.
Thirteenth Amendment, Section 1:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
****************************
You either have a funny take on the English language or are being intentionally obtuse. Either way I don’t have time to play. Why don’t we let the readership decide if as you say, “What is immoral about servitude?” and that involuntary servitude is still legal. That guy in Cleveland should have used that excuse before killing himself after imprisoning those young women in his home for years. Surely they owed him for the taxi service.
You’re a hoot!
mespo wrote: “You either have a funny take on the English language or are being intentionally obtuse.”
You act like you have never heard of the concept of Constitutional slavery. Pay attention and maybe you will learn something.
The prohibition in the Constitution on slavery is found in the Thirteenth Amendment, and it makes an exception for slavery as punishment for a crime. This is how prisons can work their prisoners without paying them minimum wage and yet not violate the Constitution. If a State brought back the Biblical form of slavery, allowing thieves to be indentured servants to the people they robbed, there would be no Constitutional prohibition for that. It would be perfectly legal for State legislatures to make robbers slaves to the people they robbed to pay back their debt.
We see by comments here that not all religious denominations agree on accepting same sex marriages. Some are more welcoming than others. Why, then, does the Catholic Church believe it has the authority to dictate secular state policy when they can’t even get the total support of other faiths? The fact that not all religious institutions agree on the issue–not surprising since they don’t agree on doctrine or Biblical interpretation otherwise there would be only one religion–reinforces that the one, true and only arbiter of our laws is the Constitution even over and above attempts by citizens to circumvent it’s supremacy to invoke their own prejudices. The protestations of religious groups is simply background noise as we begin to see the unfolding of the full expression of the concept of freedom for all Americans unencumbered by ancient and unsupportable superstitions, fear and repression.
When I read a misleading statement like “The Bible says slavery is right” from Mespo I shake my head and wish I possessed the time to address it but know I do not. It is refreshing then for me to read DavidM and his cogent answers.
While all do not have the time nor probably the necessary ability to respond to such errors please know DavidM there are more than a few who possess the time to read.
Keep up the fight.
Wow, Dr. Matt that sure us simplifying the debate. 🙂 The truth is that words mean legally what we as a society say they mean upon generally accepted usage. History of the word is interesting but not particularly helpful in deciding these questions since language is pretty malleable.
David:
As usual, you miss the point that Hubert made not a categorical error but one of degree in his discernment of the concept of Biblical slavery.
He completely missed the concept that there is no moral difference between the two conditions of servitude. Since you ignored that part of my argument, I guess you did too.
mespo wrote: “… there is no moral difference between the two conditions of servitude.”
What is immoral about servitude?
So you are saying that if a thief could not repay what he stole, that it would be immoral to make him a slave to the man from whom he stole?
I would argue that it would be better for society, for the victim of the crime, and for the criminal himself, to make him a slave to the person he robbed rather than waste taxpayer money by locking him up in prison.
And you know what? Our Constitution STILL allows for this type of slavery. We just don’t do it. Maybe you had better change the Thirteenth Amendment to our our U.S. Constitution before you start calling this type of slavery immoral.
Thirteenth Amendment, Section 1:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
mespo727272
Thanks. Mike A. and the other fine commenters here. I emailed the parish priest with the post and hopefully he will comment. I’m interested to hear what he thinks.
======================
Very nice gesture.
Sorry Jon. I meant, “sit down” comic. ~~~~
OK… I’ve been following these comments since yesterday. Always one to try and simplify, I decided that the bottom line lies in the definition (and use of) the word “marriage” (and any of its variant forms). After all, both legally and “societally,” it’s that word which seems to be causing the hang ups. (It doesn’t require a formal ceremony, a blood test, a clerical blessing or a sheepskin for two people to declare/vow eternal commitment to one another; which begs the question, “Is the marriage also for other reasons – insurance benefits, tax incentives, legitimizing a child’s birth, etc.?) Back to the point…
I know there are a couple of definitions for the word. (I’ve noticed that some of you seem married to this blog.) So I returned to a source I expected would be one of the more progressive purveyors of etymology: Google® Boy, was I wrong (and I am almost afraid to share it).
First, I looked up Google’s definition of etymology. (I wanted to confirm I was correct in my thinking that Google® is malleable, progressive and relevant.) It defines “etymology” as follows:
noun: etymology
1.
the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history.
the origin of a word and the historical development of its meaning.
plural noun: etymologies
“the etymology of a word may be unknown”
Origin
late Middle English: from Old French ethimologie, via Latin from Greek etumologia, from etumologos ‘student of etymology,’ from etumon, neuter singular of etumos ‘true.’
Good enough.
For kicks, I then looked up the word “gay,” since it’s been bandied about quite a bit in these two interrelated blogs: Biting my fingernails (I couldn’t wait to see the results), I watched the little rectangular bubble pop up:
gay
gā/
adjective
adjective: gay; comparative adjective: gayer; superlative adjective: gayest
1.
(of a person, esp. a man) homosexual.
“that friend of yours, is he gay?”
synonyms: homosexual, lesbian; More
informal queer
“gay men and women”
relating to or used by homosexuals.
“feminist, black, and gay perspectives”
2.
lighthearted and carefree.
“Nan had a gay disposition and a very pretty face”
brightly colored; showy; brilliant.
“a gay profusion of purple and pink sweet peas”
3.
informal offensive
foolish, stupid, or unimpressive.
“making students wait for the light is kind of a gay rule”
noun
noun: gay; plural noun: gays
1.
a homosexual, esp. a man.
“Hmmm,” I thought. “According to Google, not only is the word ‘gay,’ itself, sexist, but women are perceived to be “not especially” gay. (They’re relegated to synonym-ville.)
We all know the root “homo” is something of a double entendre, referring to the Greek “homos,” meaning “same” or “similar” (not that Google has any clue), but also to the scientific nomenclature classification of humans (male and female), of the genus “homo,” species “sapiens” and subspecies “sapiens;” otherwise known as “homo sapiens sapiens.”
It would seem neither definition of “homo” distinguishes based on gender. (Only Google does that.)
Now that I was educated in the perspective I should expect from Google, I was prepared, and thus, not surprised to read Google’s definition of “marriage.” And neither should you be.
Ready?
mar·riage
ˈmarij/
noun: marriage; plural noun: marriages
1.
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
“a happy marriage”
synonyms: wedding, wedding ceremony, marriage ceremony, nuptials, union
“the marriage took place at St. Margaret’s”
antonyms: divorce, separation
the state of being married.
“women want equality in marriage”
synonyms: (holy) matrimony, wedlock More
“a proposal of marriage”
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
2.
a combination or mixture of two or more elements.
“a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel”
synonyms: union, alliance, fusion, mixture, mix, blend, amalgamation, combination, merger
“a marriage of jazz, pop, and gospel”
antonyms: separation
(in pinochle and other card games) a combination of…
I laugh at the subliminal implications that a marriage between a man and a woman is a happy one, compared with the statement that women [still?] want equality. (What does that mean, exactly? Are they not yet considered equals in marriage?)
I laughed out loud at the last definition (which I’ve reserved for later). The whole thing sounds like a stand-up comic’s punch line.
So, I’m sitting in my den, when college buddy Jon Stewart calls, wanting to try out a new joke over the phone. Here’s how it plays out…
“It’s back. All that chatter about the word ‘marriage.’ (Somehow I think it’s been a topic of discussion for a very long time. I dunno… since the days of Abraham, maybe?) But it’s come up again, because of a recent ruling in the state where I went to college, and it’s causing a bit of a stir among the ‘legal elite,’ the Christian right, and, I would imagine, everyone I ever met when I was there. It happened last week when a federal court judge (Arenda L. Wright Allen) pulled out the U.S. Constitution and ripped Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriage a new hole-a whole new, a new way to look at the whole concept of marriage. For some, in places like Lynchburg, it must have come as a real shock. But for those of us who keep up with political correctness and consider ourselves reasonably tech savvy, it’s nothing new. Right? I mean, just google it. It’s right there in black and white: ‘A combination of a king and queen of the same suit.’ (I’m thinkin’ Armani.)”
[Exit stage, left.]
Easy now… I’m a doctor. (I only PLAY a comedian online.)
Hubert Cumberdale wrote: “The Bible is NOT however, talking about justification of slavery in the modern sense that we are familiar with, looking back briefly in recent history.”
Mespo wrote: “Hubert: that’s rubbish and you know it. I’ve read –in horror sometimes — the Christian bible and your interpretation is so far from the norm as to be intellectually dishonest. ”
Hubert is not being dishonest. Sorry, Mark, but no matter how much you have read the Bible, you are ignorant if you do not recognize the concepts that Hubert has so patiently tried to explain.
Consider this passage from the Torah:
If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep. If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him; for he should make full restitution; if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.
(Exo 22:1-3)
Furthermore, the law required such slaves to be set free every seventh year. Consider this passage:
Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
(Exo 21:1-2)
And another passage from the Torah:
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him. And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.
(Deu 15:12-15)
There was a method whereby a slave could become a bondslave, or lifelong slave, but it was strictly voluntary on the part of the slave and it required him to pierce his ear with an awl to make a statement of love for his master and his desire to be part of his master’s household and a slave for life.
And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee; Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise. It shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou sendest him away free from thee; for he hath been worth a double hired servant to thee, in serving thee six years: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in all that thou doest.
(Deu 15:16-18)
Hubert:
that’s rubbish and you know it. I’ve read –in horror sometimes — the Christian bible and your interpretation is so far from the norm as to be intellectually dishonest. Slaves were captured persons used as laborers by all dominant cultures of the First Century. While it was possible to be indentured for offenses against other citizens there was no guarantee of freedom. Also you fail to understand there is no moral difference between the slave you are talking about and the one I am talking about which were the vast majority. The Israelites themselves were taken into slavery in Egypt and Babylon. They had no grantee of freedom in either situation and it took miraculous intervention to free them both times.
Wow. Here we go again…
Mespo727272 said “The Bible says slavery is right. Is it right in your view then? Infertile heterosexual couples get married all the time. Is that marriage a waste of time?”
This is a very common misconception about what the Bible says concerning slavery. First, there is an assumption on what the Bible is talking about when it mentions “slaves” or bondslaves”. A slave from 140 years ago, when slavery was condoned and a slave from the Bible are two totally different things. Here’s why. Back in the time period where the Bible is describing, when a person was caught breaking the law, the punishment would often be to serve another person or perhaps a dignitary as their sentence. Once their service would be over, they of course would be set free. Their sentence for punishment would be fulfilled. There were rules on how these “slaves” were to be treated during their sentence. That’s simply what the Bible is talking about. How they were supposed to treat their bondslaves. The Bible is NOT however, talking about justification of slavery in the modern sense that we are familiar with, looking back briefly in recent history.
This is a common mistake, spoken in ignorance of what the scripture is talking about, yet it is used over and over and over by those wanting to scoff at the Bible and/or people of faith.
A nickel’s worth of free advice would be to at least be familiar with what you are trying to attack. Trying to use the Bible against itself by picking something out that doesn’t even jive with what you are saying simply makes you look foolish, while atheists, in a blind leading the blind fashion, cheer you on.