The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released a video Wednesday of Charlotte Bishop Peter J. Jugis explaining why the church supports Amendment One.
If passed in May, the amendment would constitutionally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman and make that type of union the only domestic legal union recognized by the state.
A bishop speaking out against gay marriage. What a novel idea.
What is interesting, however, is that the Catholic Church feels the need to support the amendment. Gay marriage is already illegal in North Carolina, so why throw more weight behind the issue? Because, Jugis explains in the video, it’s just another opportunity for the church to defend one of its principles. Fair enough. Let’s see how Jugis answers some of my other questions.
He spends the first few minutes explaining that marriage, according to the church, exists for two reasons: spousal love and procreation. In the last few minutes, Jugis addresses any of the heretics who think the church is homophobic by reminding them that Christians are taught to look upon everyone, even homosexuals, with compassion and respect. Says Jugis:
“In light of our belief in the inherent dignity of every person, without exception, individuals and society must respect those with a homosexual orientation. Respect, compassion and understanding are the only legitimate actions we can take as Christian people.”
Perhaps Jugis didn’t realize that this amendment not only further bans gay marriage; it also restricts any level of state government from giving or continuing to give unmarried couples of any sexual orientation certain protections, which are already available in cities like Chapel Hill and Durham. Perhaps he’ll come to his senses when he’s giving last rites to a dying heterosexual Catholic who couldn’t afford health insurance that could have saved his or her life.
But back to procreation and love. If marriage exists for those two reasons, but the church doesn’t recognize gay marriage, Jugis is essentially saying gay people don’t have the ability to love or bring children, in whatever way possible, into the world. Using that same reasoning, I assume the church wouldn’t recognize a married couple that’s unable to birth their own children. Should he address them in a video, too? Should he make another video telling gay people they aren’t supposed to love each other since his church doesn’t recognize their love? But I thought thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself?
I guess only if thy neighbor is as straight as thyself.
- His holiness would approve.
This article appears in Mar 13-19, 2012.
http://teenagedirtblog.livejournal.com/78148.html
the catholic church is run by a German Pope who UNexcommunicated a bishop williamson a holocaust denier
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-26/world/p…
What else would you expect………Gays and Jews and others went to the ovens in hitler’s Germany – btw hitler was born and baptised catholic in very catholic Austria in 1888. Looking on the web I cannot find he was explicitly excommunicated.
BTW the church is also trying to change the subject of the endless hidden molestation of children world wide
which the pope…………
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/pope-le…
http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Pope-Bene…
I suppose we’ll be hearing more about the BS of the sanctity of marriage – which in past re allowing inter-racial marriage, was known as
“Protecting the sanctity of the white race”
BTW the “special rights” BS – used against our gay friends and neighbors – in the past on that one, allowing blacks to vote was a “special right”
Since when do people who wish to marry require the blessing of the Catholic Church? I thought they were only in charge of Catholics.
Marriage is not a Christian institution, they have no say in who gets married to who
No, marriage is not a Christian institution. Marriage predates the founding of Christianity – even Judaism – by centuries. But never in the course of history has *marriage* ever been anything other than between man and woman (or women, in some – most – cultures). Not even ancient Greece, where homosexuality was glorified tried to do what 21st century queens are doing. What makes you so precious that you get to overturn all of history?
@Mary — How, exactly, would marriage between two men or two women be overturning all of history any more than humanity’s evolution from polygamy to monogamy overturned all of history? Aren’t we humans part of a constantly evolving story? Isn’t that was history is?
Also — why do you care? You seem quite intelligent, informed and open-minded about marriage not being a Christian institution. (That’s a huge leap from most anti-gay marriage types.) So, why are you so intolerant of one set of loving couples marrying and having the same rights as another set of loving couples? Is there a difference between one set of loving couples and another?
Hi, Brian. First of all, a caveat: I’m sipping Coffee #1 while I read yours and begin a response. Second, I thank YOU – if my comment is unusual to you, yours certainly is above-average in its warmth and friendliness to me. Okay, a 2d caveat: normal people take a dozen words to say what I have to use 100 for. I’m going to try to pare it down.
I can only tell you my observations and gut feelings. No, I think humans don’t evolve. I think we operate out of the same passions, intellect, weaknesses, senses of honor, etc. that humans have been operating out of since Adam was a boy. Socio-political structures might evolve. Maybe. Cultures certainly ebb and flow. The only unusual thing we have working for us in the 21st century is our technology, which is turning out to be (imo – never humble o, btw) a pretty rotten godhead.
Also, we haven’t evolved from polygamy to monogamy, except in the JudeoChristian West. Polygamy is still practiced in the Islamic world, in animistic Africa, in India, and I believe among the indigenous of Australia. I don’t know whether China still practices polygamy under Communism, but nonChristian Chinese certainly did up through the 1940s, at least. We – the judeochristian cultures – are the oddballs, still, in monogamy.
So, why do I care? Lots of reasons. An ineffable sense of right and wrong, health and unhealth. Sentimental straight people seem to have this image of homosexual love as being just like heterosexual love, except for genital differences (or samenesses…) but from what I’ve observed, they’re not. I have friends and family members who are gay, of course (does anyone NOT, any more?) and I pick up on differences in chemistry and dynamic from heterosexual love relationships. I am still working at trying to isolate and name what I’m seeing, so bear with me in my limitations.
Whatever it is, it’s got to be tied in with – isn’t it Plato’s assertion? “the love of a man is better than the love of a woman.” (Flaming misogynist! Don’t call me a “platonic” friend!!!) But still, Plato and his colleagues didn’t push for their partners to be recognized in a legally spousal way.
About marriage as a “Christian” institution. I think it’s a mistake to confuse the fact that Christianity has elevated marriage to a sacramental covenant into asserting that marriage is itself a Christian institution. But I also believe that marriage is the bedrock institution of society, of any society, and redefining it will be more than detrimental – it will be destructive to society.
Off for my day, now – Take care.Thanks for being even politely interested in what this old bat thinks. 🙂 God bless!
A couple more (hopefully brief) observations:
first, comparing “discrimination” against gay marriage with racial discrimination, even in interracial marriage, is irrational. Skin color is not equal to behavior. What’s more, interracial marriage has been practiced throughout history. Think of Solomon and the Shunamite woman (“I am black but comely”). Think Othello.
Also, regarding the Catholic Church’s involvement with this and other “secular” social issues. For a Christian, there is no such thing as a division between sacred and secular; there is no secular; all dimensions of life belong to God and are sacred.
Additionally, the Church does not only deal with temporals, but sees the Eternal that exists behind and through the temporals. Immortal souls are at stake in these issues, and so the Church must become involved, out of deep love for those souls.
I don’t expect any of the readers of this blog to drop to your knees and say, “Oh, I get it now! Yes, how wonderful!” – I’m not that naive. What I would like, however, is that you try to stretch your minds a bit to see where we’re coming from, to look at things from behind our eyeballs, as something of an academic exercise if nothing more. It’s easy to say that we’re your enemies because we disagree with you – it’s a lot more honest, but also more difficult, to recognize and to say, “So-and-so loves me, even though he/she/they oppose what I want for myself.”
Thanks for letting me participate here. I appreciate it.
@ Mary – The one thing in your comment that is glaring to me is you state that this is your observation and gut feeling. No real facts or data to back up anything that you might feel. Let me say that I agree you are certainly entitled to those things but you made no compelling argument against same sex marriage. From experience I know that sometimes gut feelings can be wrong and observations can be clouded with judgement.
Just because you feel something is right or wrong doesn’t make it so. The life of a homosexual is no more unhealthy than any other. Personally I do agree that it is not just like heterosexual relationships but of course no two relationships of any kind are exactly the same as they are all made up of very individual personalities. Also personally I have no desire for my own relationship to mirror any other couples relationship and least of all marriage which has been a relationship model of failure for many decades now.
There is no proof that marriage was based on love or procreation. It was about a contract or agreement for financial gain or land. Plato and his contemporaries had no need to marry for that very reason as they were part of a male dominated society that owned everything. Yes it was indeed a very misogynistic society but that’s the way it was then. Woman have gained many more rights(and are still fighting) since then. The other difference is that sexual activity between the same sexes was acceptable in Plato’s time unlike today and the fact that it is so taboo today would be yet another byproduct and downfall of religion.
Unlike you I do feel that some of human kind has and can evolve. That evolution is mirrored in some societies and mainly the ones that are not caught up in taking literal quotes from some old books in order to create laws for the 21st century. My own personal observation and gut feeling is that religion has held back a majority of human kind from evolving but not all.
I believe you made some mention of souls maybe even of God but those are still just things you believe as there is still no scientific evidence of the existence of either.
You also made a reference to marriage as a bedrock institution of society as if it essential to keeping world order but same sex marriage has been around since 2001 and the only societies since it started that appear to be in danger are the ones that keep clinging to an outdated idea that it’s something sacred between a man and woman.
As I said before I don’t personally feel that marriage is a concern for me but for those in my community that wish to raise children it could be essential. I think you said it was for procreation and that translates to children. Children translates to family(in the traditional sense) and all families deserve all the rights and protections that you and any other tax paying US citizen has. It’s about being seen as equal in the eyes of the law and not the eyes of a being called God.
Listen Mary, give up trying to put a label or name on what ever it is that you think you sense is different about homosexual relationships. It is different but it doesn’t need or ask for you to label it and you’re never going to understand it simply because you’re not homosexual.
No Mary, I don’t expect to change your mind here today but that’s not why I responded to your comment. The fact remains you still have not provided a compelling reason to deny another tax paying US citizen the same rights afforded you or any other heterosexual based on your PERSONAL observation or gut feeling.
Mary,
Fortunately, we don’t have to speculate about what same-sex marriage will likely do to our society and its social institutions.
Its an experiment that other countries have tried (for over 2 decades now).
And every bit of empirical data I have ever run across has shown that same-sex marriage has had no discernible impact – not a blip – on the institution of marriage or the society, in those places in which it has been legalized. None of the sky-is-falling societal collapse that we are constantly being told will happen, has ever happened. Ever.
And Mary, I suggest you consult some anthropology text books. There are indeed instances throughout history of same-sex marriages. Some are even expressly for purposes of procreation and child rearing in the case of barren women (see the Nuer Tribe of the Sudan, for such an example).
In fact, you’ll also learn that there are literally dozens of variations of marriage arrangements, including “ghost marriage” throughout human history – so its simply false as can be that marriage has only ever been between “one man and one woman”. It couldn’t be anymore false. World history is rife with creative variations on the marriage concept, and its far richer and interesting than you give it credit for.
And remember, we’re talking about a society that must govern everyone here, not just Catholics or other Christians. You may see no division between the secular and religious and reality – but the courts do. Laws must serve a secular purpose. Intones about the (alleged) divine reality of marriage hold no authority in the courts, and certainly better not hold authority over me or others not apart of your flock, which is so disastrously misguided on this issue. Disastrously misguided.
SSM will not harm society, it will not affect your life, it will not cause upheavel, it will just give a few people some rights they sorely deserve.