True values
Much has been written on this page about the correct Christian approach to
marriage law. I would like to respond to some of the arguments made. As a
Catholic, I do see a need to have heartfelt love and compassion for all
people. I also see an obligation to respect the truth revealed in nature,
which is also confirmed by faith. There is no conflict between love and
truth, for “love rejoices with the truth” (1 Cor 13:6) and we are called
to speak the truth in love (Eph 4:15).
Some Catholics say that we should not impose our beliefs on others. The
Church does not, in fact, ask us to impose our faith on society. However, we
are obliged to promote true values, seen through human reason, which respect
the dignity of the human person and promote the common good. Government
inherently puts values into practice, whether in assisting the poor and
vulnerable or in exercising criminal justice. Our faith gives us certainty
about some of the values we see through human reason, including the unique
value seen in marriage between one man and one woman. This relationship is
unique because of the natural, organic union that occurs between a man and a
woman and because of the children that are the natural fruit of this union.
The law sanctions marriage in a unique way primarily because of its
relationship to children. The only natural process by which children come to
be is the organic bodily union of a man and a woman. Therefore, limiting the
term marriage to opposite sex couples is neither arbitrary nor a form of
unjust discrimination. It reflects the natural truth. While the law can
justly preserve the freedom of individuals to associate, it is true: marriage
is unique for a reason.
Fr. Daniel Weiske
Brainerd
Comments (9)
Add commentThank you for sharing what you believe to be
the "truth", from your religious perspective, Fr. Weiske. I am sure that there are many in the Catholic churches (and a few other denominations) who will concur with the "Yes" vote your church has worked very hard to promote for months now. As an ELCA Lutheran, I find the views of Biship Chilstrom to be far more compelling:
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentaries/173954851.html?refer=y.
You spend some time arguing "natural law", believable only if science actually supported this theory:
"In order for the "natural law" argument to work, one must first ignore the research that demonstrates the presence of same-sex attraction in hundreds of species of animals. There is a growing body of evidence that throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex preference is a naturally-occurring phenomenon that serves useful functions among social creatures. And so it is with human beings: basically, same-sex attraction is natural for a subset of humanity.
Once the naturalness of same-sex attraction is established, it is difficult to maintain a "natural law" argument against same-sex marriage. Even so, it is worth discussing the argument further, because of its central conceit: that the state should favor opposite-sex relationships, because the state in turn reaps benefits from these relationships. This logic puts the cart before the horse: couples do not marry to gain privileges from the state, nor do they marry for the benefit of society. People marry for love, for security, to build a family, to make a life together, and for a host of other reasons. In short, people marry - regardless of the state's interest in marriage."
(From: http://knightofnothing.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-losing-arguments-against...)
Whether intended or not, this misguided amendment will single out and discriminate against same-sex MN couples who wish to exercise their equal civil rights under the Constitution. Why should your brand of "truth"
limit their Constitutional rights, Fr Weiske?
Why is it not sufficient for Catholics to joyfully and confidently practice their faith and live out it's teachings without imposing them on others who don't share those beliefs?
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I wish the time and money and heartache and divisiveness that embody this amendment would have all been invested in God's poor. We
conduct these culture wars against some of God's children while others are sick and hungry and lonely. It seems like we
have our priorities "bass-ackwards", and that's a sad witness to the world about what we believe - - - about what our "truth" represents.
Value Each Citizen in the State of Minnesota...
As a Christian, I do not subscribe to forcing MY beliefs on other Citizens of the State of Minnesota...
I live my daily life with Christ's guidance, but do not actively through Constitutional Amendments alter or put up to Popular Vote what is the Civil Rights of Citizens in the State of Minnesota or the United States of America...
I hold a very firm separation of Church and State conviction...
I respect Thomas Jefferson in this regard...
May I suggest a reading Mr. Weiske (I do not use your Catholic title, it has no meaning to me) and use your proper Citizen name...
I also do the same for John Clayton Nienstedt...
The Catholic Church term Bishop or Archbishop holds no meaning and I refer to John with his proper Citizen name...
...
Article:
THOMAS JEFFERSON ON CHRISTIANITY & RELIGION...
Link:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm
...
May you enjoy the reading...
Thank you Father Weiske
Father Weiske,
Thank you for a very well written letter. Unfortunately, there are those who will be angry at hearing those words. You speak the truth eloquently and without fear. I am saddened, as another writer is here as well, that this is such a divisive issue in our state. I, however, blame those who are pushing a "marriage for all" agenda on everyone without regards to what the full effects will be.
And, by the way, I use your title with the same respect I would give another clergy member, be it Pastor, Rabbi or whatever.
"In order for the "natural
"In order for the "natural law" argument to work, one must first ignore the research that demonstrates the presence of same-sex attraction in hundreds of species of animals."
I also have seen dogs hump the heck out of legs, pillows and stuffed animals.
How does humping a pillow demonstrate the presence of...
...same sex attraction in dogs? All that shows is that animals are completely instinct driven and when certain stimuli are present, the behave a certain way. Now I'd be willing to believe that liberals operate in a similar manner, they certainly make the argument that people are nothing but base animals often enough, but I think most people are repulsed at the suggestion that they have no control over their sexual impulses.
Funny! Now think a little bit more...
@rubbyk: You've made a humorous and pithy remark about my point. Bravo! But dogs, like other social animals, behave the way they do for a reason, and a dog that humps everything is almost always a dog under considerable stress. We might say the same thing about a human being who humps everything. In either case, we've left the topic at hand - homosexuality and marriage equality - and moved to the subject of behavioral pathology. For my part, even though your underlying point is off-topic, I actually appreciate where your observation and this line of reasoning leads: to a scientific understanding of the natural world, rather than one based upon the Bible or the dogma of religion. Since there is no credible science which supports your view of homosexuality, your options are basically limited to quoting scripture or making snarky comments online. Sorry about that.
@muehlbau: you said, "I think most people are repulsed at the suggestion that they have no control over their sexual impulses." I agree! So I'm not sure what you're getting at here. We judge behavior by its effects on people. The most basic problem with the arguments against marriage equality is that they utterly lack careful observation and empirical evidence. To my mind, the opposition to same-sex marriage is merely an ideological and theological position. You know what else was a fact-free theological position? That the earth is the center of the universe. No amount of theological writings or apologetics or rational argumentation fixed this fundamental misapprehension of cosmology; it was observation and empirical data that fixed this. Pro tip: it's time to abandon dogma and start gathering evidence to support what you say. Thanks!
Response to Catholics
For those interested, here are a couple of essays that respond specifically to the Catholic position on same-sex marriage.
http://knightofnothing.blogspot.com/2012/07/catholics-and-gay-marriage.html
http://knightofnothing.blogspot.com/2012/09/catholics-and-gay-marriage-a...
Final thought - if Fr. Weiske's objection to equality amounts to semantic parsing over the word 'marriage,' well, that is a thin broth indeed. Whether or not the amendment passes, people define and practice marriage differently. The Catholic practice of the sacrament of marriage does not deserve special consideration from the state.
Knightofnothing
Please let me know what my view of homosexuality is, I would like to know what you have come up with by the point I made jokingly. I should be wondering what your views on sexuality is comparing humans to animals.
Add Two Words
@rubbyk: you tell me what your views are - I'd be happy to learn them. Your sarcastic post pretty plainly suggested an unfavorable view of gays and lesbians, but if I am wrong, please tell me otherwise!
I'll add two words to my sentence so that what I said doesn't seem so strident: "Since there is no credible science which supports your seemingly negative view of homosexuality..."
FIFY.