Law: Skip gays' vows

The Boston Herald ^ | July 27, 2002 | Eric Convey

[maryz]

I saw this in the print Herald this morning, and I would have typed it in if it hadn't been on the website.

One of my sisters gets the Herald too, and she asked if I didn't think Law's comments seemed awfully hypocritical in view of the current scandal. Personally, I rather hope he's just working up to cracking down some on sexually active priests -- whether homosexual or heterosexual -- or certainly pedophile.

I don't know Toronto, but I'm afraid saying something like this in the Boston-Cambridge area will draw an even worse reaction than those quoted -- in many quarters, likely a worse reaction than the abuse scandal. He may well figure, though, that, given his current reputation in Boston, he probably can't make himself more unpopular no matter what he says. So he might as well make himself unpopular defending and teaching Church doctrine. I for one am praying for him.

[Salvation]

Catholics should boycott homosexual-union ceremonies because attending them would lend support to unnatural relationships, Bernard Cardinal Law said yesterday

Amazing statement! I can't believe he got something right!

[Salvation]

But it also states that marriage was ordained by God and sexual relations are "morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established."

BTTT!

[Domestic Church]

It will be interesting to see if he tows this line with those who divorce and remarry outside the Church...will he say in public that Catholics shouldn't attend that ceremony either. I don't mind his cracking down as it is sorely needed. I just hope it is all done according the the CCC.

[afraidfortherepublic]

It's about time somebody in authority made these remarks. Catholics used to be enjoined by the same reasoning from attending weddings of divorced people, or Catholics who were being married "outside" the Church. Those sanctions seem to have fallen by the wayside too. Of course, if I had abided by those sanctions I could not have attended the wedding of my son who married a Baptist in a Baptist Church. But I felt that it is better to keep him as part of the family and hope and pray that he and his bride would come to accept the Catholic Church on their own.

[maryz]

I can't believe he got something right!

To be fair, he does get some things right -- apart from that one glaring exception. He did crack down on that nun who donned vestments and performed a baptism to the delectation of the media and got horrible press on it. He did refuse to permit (I think it was) a rice communion wafer for the gluten-intolerant little girl who was scheduled to make First Communion and got horrible press for it; he recommended that she be allowed to receive under the species of wine.

(In the latter case, of course, he had no authority to allow any such thing; anyway, no one seemed to point out that the little girl was going to feel different because she is different, and many children -- sadly -- are different in far more tragic ways. I wondered if when she's a bit older and her friends want to go out for pizza or burgers, her parents are going to insist that Papa Gino's and McDonald's provide rice-based alternatives! Sorry if that's off-topic -- I've wanted to point it out for a long time!)

[Salvation]

will he say in public that Catholics shouldn't attend that ceremony either

Even in the case of a granted annulment? Valid ceremony then, correct?

[polemikos]

Valid ceremony then, correct?

Are you referring to the civil ceremony
or the sacrament of matrimony?

[Domestic Church]

Yes. I wasn't referring to the annulment situation. There was a time when a Catholic leaving a spouse and remarrying outside the faith without annulment was cut off from fellow Catholics to a degree. Marriage was for life, no if ands or buts, unless the circumstances were so outrageous that annulment and all the hoops entailed by it were necessary. Sometimes a legal separation would be done but not a formal divorce. Individual Crosses were carried by many.

Now, we have easier annulments and that seems good in many regards for the families but it hasn't helped to slow down the divorce rate. And divorce has no negative connotation now either. I know a woman in my parish who has been married and divorced several times and she is a lector.

[SMEDLEYBUTLER]

Charles Martel of the Religious Coalition for the Freedom to Marry said the Catholic Church is promoting a "culture of fear."

Actually, Chuck, it's a culture of truth.

"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

The Church encourages licit, moral relationships.

Martel, a psychotherapist, said the effect of such remarks, especially on gay young people, could be "very damaging . . . how do they practice their faith when they get that message?" he added.

Psychotherapist?! I knew that was coming. They should practice their faith the same way heterosexuals are supposed to. Avoid the occasion of sin and save sexual relations for a heterosexual marriage ordained by God. If they don't like it, they can leave and practice a faith that rejects Scripture. There are plenty of them out there, Chuck, just pick one.

Chuck Provancher, president of Dignity/Boston, an organization of gay Catholics, called Law's remarks "unfortunate."

Chuck considers the remarks unfortunate because he didn't get a green light to engage in sodomy, fisting, water sports, etc. all under the guise of "love."

"It seems to me the Catholic church should be celebrating the love of two people," Provancher said. "Now the cardinal is saying that somehow that is wrong?"

Somebody must be spiking your kool-aid, Chuck. You must have skipped that part of Scripture that talks about Sodom and Gomorrah.

[maryz]

LOL -- I was hoping someone would do that!

One other thing I might have commented on, though:

"(Church leaders) should be doing everything possible to encourage relationships," he said. "They are so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

I have the impression that it's not the Church leaders who are "so focused on sex that they cannot see beyond that."

[Salvation]

A civil ceremony is not valid in the eyes of the Church. I was referring to the Sacrament of Matrimony after a granted annulment. Would the ceremony/Sacrament be valid then?

[Salvation]

Has the lady applied for or received an annulment for both marriages. Sounds strange. But I don't know any details.

[madprof98]

I know a woman in my parish who has been married and divorced several times and she is a lector.

One of our parish leaders is a media celebrity who recently divorced her third husband. She said in the newspaper that she is now looking for Mr. Right #4, but she wants to be sure the gentleman is a practicing Catholic. (I think we have a lot more to worry about than predatory priests.)

[NYer]

I for one am praying for him.

Me too! It would seem that he fits that adage - damned if you, damned if you don't. Since he went out on a limb to support the church's stance on "gay unions" and "female priests", would that he had taken one more step towards the precipice and included a reminder of the church's stance on homosexual priests. I half expect that some of those already ordained were salivating last night as they watche the disrobment station.

[maryz]

would that he had taken one more step towards the precipice and included a reminder of the church's stance on homosexual priests.

What's done is done and can't be undone -- but we can hope and pray he continues now he's started. This is the first time I know of that he has mentioned homosexuality publicly -- not that I follow him around to hear his every word, but I'm sure if he had preached this in Boston, it would have made the papers.

[livius]

Too true, SMEDLYBUTLER!

I was surprised that Law said the things he did. Maybe he's actually made a decision in his life, as a result of the horrible things that have happened.

I lived in NY during much of Law's reign in Boston, and I must say that while he was technically conservative and aligned with Cardinal O'Connor, I never thought he was very enthusiastic about it. His pro-life statements were often a bit on the ambiguous side, for one thing.

However, both he and O'Connor seemed in many ways to skate away from some of the real problems in their dioceses , although O'Connor did attack the problem of gays in the seminary. O'Connor (who was a wonderful person, and probably a saint, I suspect) is now with Our Lord, but Law still has time to consider his episcopal performance. Perhaps he's seeing it all differently now?

I thought he should resign. But if he repents of his lapses and changes, that would be a thousand times more powerful.

[maryz]

His pro-life statements were often a bit on the ambiguous side, for one thing.

I never found them ambiguous exactly -- I think he just early on mastered "clergyspeak," that rather bland, smarmy drone that characterizes far too many clergy of all denominations. He seems to like mingling with the rich and powerful, and abortion is the one issue on which he has been willing to go against the liberal MA establishment. (Way too many of his pronouncements on other issues might have been drafted by the DNC!)

I feel very hopeful that he will decide "in for a penny, in for a pound" -- as I said, he doesn't seem to have anything to lose now.

I would be even more hopeful if I were to read that he had cleaned out the Chancery personnel offices.

But I'm still praying.

[american colleen]

Thanks for the ping and post, Mary. I do have a few thoughts on this, I'll post them later on when I have more time.