Replies

How telling.

``Oh, my God. Wow,'' gasped Marianne Duddy-Burke of Boston Dignity, a group of gay Catholics. ``It's an appalling statement on so many levels. It disregards a civil servant's duty to the entire community.''

Of course, the Bishop is hardly a "civil servant", but instead a spiritual servant. The idea of an "apostolic" witness and adherent to the transcendant truth is beyond the understanding of those, so called, "Christians" that see the faith as nothing but a veiled apparatus for social improvement or change based upon a loose set of Enlightenment values.

In the thinking of such people, the servant reports to the General Will, not to God.

She's not referring to the Bishop as being a civil servant. She's saying that the Bishop has no business telling a civil servant (Worcester City Clert David Rushmore) that said civil servant is in league with evil if he follows the law and grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Which to me (and I'm not even Roman Catholic) is absurd. The woman seems to think that the First Amendment means that anyone in government or that has any public influence should completely divorce any religiously-formed moral sense from their actions in government.

Isn't this a conflict with her belief that people should accept same-sex unions on the basis that Christianity is "inclusive"? What was her opinion, I wonder, when California officials defied the law of the State of California and granted same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of their own moral convictions? Guess they shouldn't have done that, eh?

She's not referring to the Bishop as being a civil servant. She's saying that the Bishop has no business telling a civil servant (Worcester City Clert David Rushmore) that said civil servant is in league with evil if he follows the law and grants marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Which to me (and I'm not even Roman Catholic) is absurd. The woman seems to think that the First Amendment means that anyone in government or that has any public influence should completely divorce any religiously-formed moral sense from their actions in government.

Isn't this a conflict with her belief that people should accept same-sex unions on the basis that Christianity is "inclusive"? What was her opinion, I wonder, when California officials defied the law of the State of California and granted same-sex marriage licenses on the basis of their own moral convictions? Guess they shouldn't have done that, eh? Bet she came right out and loudly condemned that.