The archdiocese has called a meeting of the clergy to discuss how to respond to the local call for the legalization of same-sex marriage.
May I remind the Catholic leadership that their response last time around was such an utter failure that it led to a belief that Archbishop Apuron had called for the beheading of homosexuals and a much longer fight than was necessary.
The Catholic leadership knows exactly to what I refer. For the rest of you, just google the words "apuron homosexual muslim".
So I am going to suggest EXACTLY what I suggested the last time around and was completely ignored - as I probably will be this time. Here it is. Ready?
SAY ONLY WHAT THE CHURCH SAYS, no more no less.
In fact, please don't even restate it in your own words. Simply refer any inquiries about your position to the document:
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
The document was issued in 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and ends with the following papal stamp:
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Thus, there is no higher authority and there is no reason to pretend that you can improve on it.
Now, here are some other thoughts.
It is absolutely stupid for the Church to engage in a debate on the matter.
- First, the Church cannot change its position because at the root of that position is not some fundamental belief about homosexual relations but a fundamental truth about the intrinsic nature of sexual relations period.
- Second, even if that position could be modified, local church leaders would have no authority to do so.
- Third, the real militants behind the current effort (not the actual couple) want to draw the Church into a fight in order to avoid the larger social, anthropological, and philosophical discussions where they would lose if the fight could ever be fair.
I have proven this time and again by constantly and consistently dismantling the view that the Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia somehow provided a precedent for same sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage advocates will quote a phrase from Loving which states "marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man", and then they will stop there. They stop there because 1) that quote makes their case, and 2) if they go on, the rest of the statement unmakes their case.
Here's the whole statement from Loving:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Notice "basic civil rights of man" is in quotes. When a phrase or sentence is in quotes in a court decision it is because it is referencing a precedent case, and the precedent case is always immediately noted. The precedent case in this case is Skinner v. Oklahoma. Thus the whole section reads:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942).
We then go to Skinner v. Oklahoma and we read:
Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
I have demonstrated this fact countless times since 2009 when the debate first broke into the open not because I oppose same-sex marriage, but because I oppose dishonesty. However, rather than engage the truth of the matter I get labeled a homophobe, a bigot, a hater, etc.
I'm fine with that. But the local church leadership does not need to wade into these waters. There is nothing more to be said about the matter. The doctrine is not changeable and local church leaders would have no authority to change it anyway. So simply DON'T GO THERE.
Refer inquiries on same-sex unions of any kind to the above document (have a copy ready), and general inquiries on homosexuality and homosexual relations to the relevant portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Then meanwhile get back to fixing your internal problems because your moral credibility is so shot that anything you say will create an even more "arduous and painful" experience for the rest of us.