Friday, January 9, 2009

Gacked from the headlines

Interesting opinion piece in the Seattle Times, have you seen it yet, Jen? In comments, my favorite words are brandied about... "Cafeteria Catholic" about the two authors. I am a firm believer in the separation of Church and State and I hate it when the lines get blurred. Catholic Bishops have an obligation to teach the faith to Catholics, but should also remember that not everyone in this country is Catholic, or even Christian and for those reasons I think they should not overstep their bounds. Certainly speak up and discuss those issues they feel are against Catholic teaching and are immoral but don't cross the line. I still find the Catholic and Mormon support of Prop 8 distasteful. I don't care how a private person voted, though I think it's shameful for anyone to deny civil rights to a group of people based on sexual orientation through the voting booth or by any other mechanism, but that members of my church acted so publicly fight for it, left me with a bad taste in my mouth.

If we were a theocracy, then this would be moot. Lately, it seems as though the lines have be muddied. JMHO.

3 comments:

Michael Hallman said...

The thing is, Catholic bishops don't advocate for Catholic teaching to be enacted as law based on any form of revelation or teaching that is specific to Catholics. The only time the Church seeks universal recognition of certain truths is when she believes those truths to be part of the natural law applicable to all. See my previous post from Fr. Tad regarding stem cell research. I personally don't know how I fell about Prop 8 and secular gay marriage, but I do know that the Catholic Church (unlike many Evangelicals who are involved in opposition to gay marriage) does not oppose it based on any biblical or other such revelatory teaching, but on her understanding of the natural law. Now, certainly we can disagree with how she understands the natural law in this regard, but nonetheless it is important to see that this is why the Church is not overstepping any boundaries of separation of Church and State in these regards, because she is not pushing for a legal recognition of religious teaching, but rather a legal recognition of natural law (which at least in our country has been recognized throughout our history. It was the basis of our Declaration of Independence, and has been cited throughout every great civil rights movement. Dr. King frequently cited Scripture in the civil rights movement he led, but when he argued as to why civil rights should be extended legally, he argued from a basis of natural law. Abraham Lincoln did the same thing regarding slavery. I only mention this to provide precedence regarding our nation frequently relying upon natural law arguments with regards to civil law).

Maria said...

Hi Michael,

I want to answer your comment right and I really wish I could hide away and engage in discussion right now, but I've been summoned to the parent's house to take my dad to the doctor, so I don't have time to do that at the moment.

Garpu said...

Ack...hope your dad's OK! I tend to avoid political discussions, and I don't read the Times. (Too right wing for me.) But I agree...I think the bishops would have more credibility, if they didn't try to use the faith as a political football, as so many bishops did after the last election.