Bishops “Join The Discussion” On Benefits For Homosexual Couples

(whatever for???)

by Kelly Clark — the lady in the pew — October 30, 2003

In today’s statement from Bishop Daniel P. Reilly of the Worcester, Massachusetts Diocese, we are — once again — asked to believe in the Dogma of Inaccurate Reporting. I’m not sure I’m buying it this time.

October 30, 2003

“Press coverage of my remarks at a State House committee hearing on Oct. 23 misreported that the position of the Roman Catholic Church or the Catholic Bishops in Massachusetts has changed on same-sex relationships. The Church has never endorsed, and cannot support the legal recognition of such relationships, whether through marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership bills. In a statement issued this past summer, the Vatican acknowledged that homosexual persons have individual “rights as persons and citizens”. But they do not possess the right to have a same-sex relationship treated as “a basis for entitlements”. We can join the discussion with respect to individual rights and whatever socioeconomic benefits flow from those individual rights, but not with respect to the group claims of same-sex couples seeking entitlements by virtue of their homosexual relationship. Nothing I said during or after the hearing changed or conflicted with this position of the Church.”

Actually, something His Excellency said after the hearing seems to conflict with the Church’s position, Big Time, from my view in the pew.

From the Friday, October 24 Boston Globe:

“There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they [homosexual partners] have a right to, like other citizens. But just to put the title of marriage on it, I think that’s a wrong way to go.”

You “think?”

See, with all due respect, there’s actually no “I think” about it, Excellency. The Church has declared it most emphatically “the wrong way to go.” You made it sound like you were offering a personal opinion.

No doubt you didn’t mean it to sound that way, and were speaking off the cuff, so to speak, without weighing the repercussions.

But dammit, you should’ve thought about them!

And what the bleep are the bishops “joining the discussion” for, anyway?

The people — local priests, mostly — I questioned about it seemed to think it was a question of “moral theology.” (Good grief.) The reasoning seems to go something like this: the bishops “join the discussion” on homosexual partner benefits and the state drops the “same-sex marriage” bill.

There’s only one problem with this reasoning: it flies flatly in the face of Church teaching.

What part of “clear and emphatic opposition” do Excellencies O’Malley, Coleman, Dupre, and Reilly not understand?

Of the four bills under discussion in Massachusetts, one would create “same-sex marriage.” The other three would create “same-sex civil unions.”

What does the Church say about “same-sex civil unions?”

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.”

[Note to bishops: “legally recognized homosexual unions” and “same-sex civil unions” are pretty much the same thing.]

“One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

Given the bills being debated on Beacon Hill, what the bleep are Massachusetts Church leaders doing by “joining in the discussion?” Why aren’t they “refraining from any kind of formal cooperation”?

Or, if they feel the need to “join the discussion,” why aren’t they doing so by offering “conscientious objection”?

If their Excellencies don’t think they’re sending mixed-messages, consider the following excerpt from the aforementioned Boston Globe article:

Senator Cheryl Jacques, a Needham Democrat who shares parenting responsibilities with a same-sex partner, has coauthored many of the bills under consideration, and she said she was encouraged by the statements of the Catholic leaders she heard at the hearing.

Yikes.

“But — Kelly? What about, uh, The Children?”

!)#(&)!@)*+)_!_++(#&)!!!

S’cuse the language, but allow me two points here:

One: Why is every cockamamie idea that comes down the pike somehow justifiable on the grounds of “The Children???” Okay, that was a rhetorical question.

Two: It’s the CHILDREN I’m worried about — and whom I would like to presume that the bishops are worried about. Children. Children of God! Even — no, especially — the “grown-up” ones.

A major part of a bishop’s job — correct me if I’m wrong, here — is to lead God’s children in His Kingdom. Into Heaven. Call me short-sighted, but jumping “into the discussion” about offering temporal — temporal, I emphasize! — benefits to people practicing homosexual activity doesn’t seem to fall under said job description. Does it?

I used to skip school when I was a teen-ager.

My parents found out about my — well, let’s call it, “tendency” — and disciplined me for it, along with explaining to me, repeatedly, that truancy was not only against the law, but was also a sin. I knew it, but the notion of skipping school remained a big temptation in my young life.

Everybody in my family — including my favorite aunt — knew about my, uh, weakness. And yet, for my sixteenth birthday, my aunt gave me tickets to a show I’d been dying to see. The tickets were good only for a Friday at 1:00 PM. During the school year.

Mom, Dad, and Aunt all tell me skipping school is wrong.

Then Aunt comes along and offers me a benefit for skipping school

Can you blame me for being a tad confused???

“Kelly, isn’t that a rather simplistic analogy?”

Guilty as charged. But I’m trying to make a point to the Bishops.

Bishops? Here’s the thing.

I’m more than willing — actually, I’m quite eager — to assume your good intentions.

I’d like to believe that, by “jumping into the discussion” on homosexual partnership benefits, you’re trying to prevent the enactment of “same-sex marriage” legislation.

But I beg you to consider something.

While you’re playing “Let’s Make a Deal” with the state, try to remember this:

Behind Doors Number One, Two, or Three stands Eternity. One way or the other.

So can you keep the confusion down to a minimum?

Thank you.

And thank you for coming along for the ride!

I hope you’ll remember to pray for everyone mentioned in this little article. And for me.

I pray for you all the time.

In Christ,

Kelly

End note:

Church teaching paragraphs from the Vatican document titled: “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons”

And now for the fine print:

Kelly Clark is your basic nobody. She serves on no parish councils, belongs to none of the myriad of designer-chic "Catholic" groups, or any Catholic group, for that matter, other than the Roman Catholic Church. Holding no theology degrees, she has no desire to see herself or any of her sex wearing a clerical collar. She figures Jesus knew what He was doing when He established His Church, and also figures that it’s His Church, not hers, and not yours. She’s an ordinary parishioner of Cathedral of the Holy Cross, Boston.

Use the links on the left to e-mail Kelly, to visit her parish, read past columns, and check out other cool stuff. (If you don’t see any links on the left, you’ve probably been directed here by a search engine. Just point your browser to http://www.pewlady.com to get to the main site.)

Copyright: Kelly Clark, 2003. I don’t care if you share this stuff with others. In fact, I hope you do! Only I’d appreciate it if you’d link me, or print it off as it is. In other words, don’t change anything. Thanks.

“The Lady in the Pew” column is updated regularly, God willing. To be notified of updates, please e-mail me. The link’s on the left.

“Mary, Mother of the Church, pray for us.”