Posted on 06/27/2006 6:10:07 AM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
In an unusual incidence of religious leaders in Massachusetts publicly criticizing one another, a multifaith coalition of clergy who support same-sex marriage plan to accuse Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley and other Catholic leaders of ``religious discrimination" today. The gay-marriage supporters plan to call on O'Malley and the other three Catholic bishops of Massachusetts to stop campaigning for a repeal of same-sex marriage, arguing that it is discriminatory to deny civil marriage benefits to gay couples whose marriages are sanctioned by other religious denominations and that it violates the principle of church-state separation to deny civil marriage rights based on Catholic teaching. ``While their magisterium teaches one thing, there are plenty of other faith traditions that don't agree," said the Rev. Anne C. Fowler, an Episcopal priest who is the rector of St. John's Church in Jamaica Plain and president of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry. ``Who are the religious voices who get heard? It's the religious right, and around here it's the Catholic Church, so here is the progressive interfaith community trying to take some action."
At a worship service before Boston's gay pride parade earlier this month, Bishop M. Thomas Shaw, leader of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts, implicitly criticized the Catholic bishops, saying, ``Religious leaders that are local to our community . . . have been quite vocal about the need to preserve marriage as they say it has always existed. When they say this, they demonstrate either incredible ignorance or a willful duplicity."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Does this apply also to the considerable numbers of people in his own rapidly dwindling denomination who disagree with him?
And isn't Shaw in "apostolic succession" to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer who, in violation of his consecration oaths, declared Henry VIII's marriage annuled when he was having trouble with the Catholic Church's feeling "the need to preserve marriage as they say it has always existed" with regard to Catherine of Aragon?
(Oh, and if I'm not mistaken there was a Catholic priest of the Archdiocese of Boston who also preached at that "worship service before Boston's gay pride parade". What's with that?)
30-some years ago the US version of the Cowley Dads was widely suspected of being a tad light in the loafers, uh, I mean sanctuary slippers.
As to the rest:
Why do the nations so furiously rage together, and why do the people imagine a vain thing?Answer: It's what they do.
I read this article and couldn't help but wonder where the Orthodox are, and the Baptists are, and the Mormons are etc, etc.
Why is the Catholic Church standing alone on this one?
Then I realized it's just a bunch of non-Christians barking wildly about what Christians believe.
Good point.
But it would be nice to hear from some non pro-gay marriage Episcopalians and Methodists too.
Although remembering that not long ago the three Boston-area Episcopal Bishops got all dressed up in their red stuff and paraded around in front of the Israeli consulate to protest Israel's nastiness in putting up a wall to keep Palestinian suicide bombers out of weddings and Passover seders, I guess it could be worse. At least they're not marching around our Cathedral.
But, really, the (United Methodist) Boston University School of Theology Magazine recently featured a long article, complete with pictures, by one of the professors who had represented the UMC at Pope Benedict XVI's "Mass for the Beginning of the Petrine Ministry of the Bishop of Rome" (the Vatican has even made the title of the pope's installation ecumenically-friendly and "sensitive") and who detailed the royal treatment SHE received as the official representative of the United Methodist Church.
Wouldn't it be nice to hear from some of these people that they actually AGREE with the Catholic Church on this issue and not with their own ministers who are in violation of their Church's official teaching.
I mean, both Shaw and the UMC pastor quoted in the article are in violation of the discipline and doctrine of their own Churches on thi subject, aren't they?
I guess the anti-ecumenical people were right all along: it is just "lets dress up and play church" for these folks. When it comes to any real doctrine, it's "all may, some do, none must."
Or, as the British comic Alan Bennett said in his novel "The Laying-On Of Hands" describing an Anglo-Catholic priest in cassock and biretta who liked to be called "Father":
"His interest in Roman Catholicism was chiefly sartorial."
I had to chuckle, I believe the UCC Minister at Marsh Chapel at BU wears a Cassock.
I don't know about the Orthodox,but in heavily Catholic Massachusetts aside from the Mormon governor, it might almost be possible to count the Mormons and Baptists on your fingers and toes. The Catholic church would seem to be the major bulwark in support of the traditional values, specifically with marriage to be between one man and one women. This should not be presented as a case of Protestant vs. Catholic, but rather as a case of right vs. wrong. The United Methodist and Episcopel church leaders are completely out of step with Christian values and they fly in the face of thousands of years of Judeo-Christian values and culture. I have a major problem with the use of the term discrimination in this article. As individuals we practice discrimination every day in our lives. As Christians we are called upon to discriminate between right and wrong. Sadly we have allowed the civil rights community to monopolize the word and it is now a pejoritive term. A hundred years ago to be discriminating was a mark of honor and now its a mark of shame. We need to recapture the positive meaning of this word and continue to apply it in our daily lives.
These are not Christians, they are radicals and homosexuals who have, under cover of deceit, taken power.
God will deal with them in due time.
That Episcopal Church?
Oh, OK.
I guess it's perfectly reasonable to follow such an impressive example. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to go down the same road?
Not.
The usual even-handed rules, I see: The conservatives are religious, so they're not allowed to campaign; the liberals are-- er -- religious, so they are.
What the homosexual lobby is afraid of, is that people will actually discuss this on the basis of the public policy interests, on the merits, on the impact re the Common Good. And the Catholic (broadly, "catholic") tradition has been really, really good at presenting such issues on the basis of Natural Law. If anybody's listening.
But by doing this, aren't they guilty of religious discrimination themselves?
I can only speak for a few independent churches that I'm familiar with...
The churches in question have veered away from, or never accepted the Bible as the the final authority in all matters...We can only set back and watch in wonder as different religons stumble around trying to figure out what Christians are...
The bible is clear on this issue...Either you believe it, or you don't...
And what's that? that you can have queer priests, and likely bishops and cardinals as long as they are catholic???
Traditional Anglican ping, continued in memory of its founder Arlin Adams. Where are the Baptists, Orthodox and Mormons? Maybe they speak up and maybe they don't. But the Globe and the Liberals don't demonize them daily the way they pick on the Catholic Church.
Better for you to respond to my statement than to fly off the handle in all directions.
I don't think the folks at the Globe have much familiarity with the Baptists, Orthodox and Mormons ~ well, they may know of one Mormon, but they're not sure what he really believes.
As long as they don't preach heresy and don't act like heretics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.