Friday, February 13, 2004
Hi Joe,
While I have no absolute legal answers, I do think I can answer your questions. I do not believe that the government will ever (at least foreseeably) have the power to force a church to marry a couple. This would be an incredible violation of the first amendment--as the first amendment was ORIGINALLY understood. Therefore I would find that highly unlikely.
As for your second question about taking away funding: that, I think, is possible. After all, a very similar debate recently happened with faith based organizations. Democrats tried to slip into the clause that any organization that discriminates against homosexuals will loose funding. I can't see why, even today, before gay marriage, that could not happen. This boils down to the big debate about whether homosexuals (identified by sexual preference!) are a "group" that can be discriminated against. This is a classing based on preference, not race or gender, so it is a unique situation.
Anyway, I have had my own fears about gay marriage recently, but they are rather different. They are from a PR perspective. I am very nervous that soon some Christians will "flip" and start doing outrageous things. I am already terrified every time I watch TV in fear that the "God Hates Fags" people will show up in MA. I believe Christians can beat back this challenge, but not if the crazies start showing up. Christian leads such as James Dobson, Franklin Graham, and even Jerry Falwell, (as well as the Catholic Bishops, of course) need to be very artful in the way they handle this. They need to preach love above anything else, I believe. If they don't, as I said, some Christian groups could respond with hate and anger. The media will feed off of it, public opinion will shift out of pity for the poor homosexuals, and we will loose this battle.
While I have no absolute legal answers, I do think I can answer your questions. I do not believe that the government will ever (at least foreseeably) have the power to force a church to marry a couple. This would be an incredible violation of the first amendment--as the first amendment was ORIGINALLY understood. Therefore I would find that highly unlikely.
As for your second question about taking away funding: that, I think, is possible. After all, a very similar debate recently happened with faith based organizations. Democrats tried to slip into the clause that any organization that discriminates against homosexuals will loose funding. I can't see why, even today, before gay marriage, that could not happen. This boils down to the big debate about whether homosexuals (identified by sexual preference!) are a "group" that can be discriminated against. This is a classing based on preference, not race or gender, so it is a unique situation.
Anyway, I have had my own fears about gay marriage recently, but they are rather different. They are from a PR perspective. I am very nervous that soon some Christians will "flip" and start doing outrageous things. I am already terrified every time I watch TV in fear that the "God Hates Fags" people will show up in MA. I believe Christians can beat back this challenge, but not if the crazies start showing up. Christian leads such as James Dobson, Franklin Graham, and even Jerry Falwell, (as well as the Catholic Bishops, of course) need to be very artful in the way they handle this. They need to preach love above anything else, I believe. If they don't, as I said, some Christian groups could respond with hate and anger. The media will feed off of it, public opinion will shift out of pity for the poor homosexuals, and we will loose this battle.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Speaking of Crazy Catholics: Kerry!!! [Rick Barry]
Wow, someone has to keep the democrats away from the interns! This is getting increasingly disturbing. I hope everyone has seen the breaking news on the Drudge Report. Looks like another sex scandal between a democrat and an intern. I know the Catholics on this blog are probably already embarrassed by the pro-choice senator receiving communion...but now he is a pro-choice, and pro-affair senator! Will the Bishop in Boston finally speak up? Oh well, maybe the primary will get interesting again!
Well, I have been contemplating the comments on the liturgy that have been flying around here. I agree, Joe, that if you are a Catholic then the changes that have been made are appropriate and should be gladly adhered to by all. However, there is a more fundamental question: is the Catholic concept of clergy as a separate class of people appropriate in the church of Jesus Christ. No one who reads this blog will doubt that, if the beliefs of Rome are correct, then they should be followed with passionate exactitude. However, what is doubted is the more fundamental question...is Rome correct?
Well, I looked to an authority that we can all agree with to clarify this matter. I found John Calvin, who said, "Christ . . . once for all offered a sacrifice of eternal expiation and reconciliation; now, having also entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we are all priests (Rev. 1:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9), but to offer praises and thanksgiving, in short, to offer ourselves and ours to God. It was his office alone to appease God and atone for sins by his offering."
If I am not mistaken, a priest in the Old Testament was one who was authorized, from the house of Aaron, to perform a sacrifice. However, we learn in Hebrews (especially Chapter 10, I believe) that the final sacrifice was on the cross, one sacrifice for all time. It is finished, and Christ has sat at the right hand of the Father. There is no longer a need for sacrifices, and thus what is the role of the priest? (rhetorical question: I understand the Catholic Church affirms that every mass is a sacrifice...wrongly affirms I believe) And why did Paul and the rest of the NT writers neglect to mention a priestly class?
Well, this is a fundamental problem, and one that this space might not be able to handle. I love the Catholic faith more and more, and would ultimately love to be shown that my thinking has been quite muddled about the faith I was born and raised in. However, I simply do not believe that the current practices of the church in Rome are faithful to Christian tradition, starting with the apostle Paul. I do not believe there is room for classes of people in Christianity with the clergy having a higher place on the spiritual ladder. Christians should leave such distinctions to the Hindus, there is no room for that in the church of Christ.
Still, anyone claiming to be a Catholic should bow with reverence at the changes that are being made, and not complain or tie purple cloth all over the church. In church history, the laity have always been, more or less, ignorant of the higher and more beautiful teaching of the church, I am sure of that. For most of history the laity have been farmers and soldiers, not theologians. However, never before have the laity believed they should tell the Pope and the other Bishops what to do. So we now have a strange combination of obnoxious outspokenness coupled with typical ignorance, and that is an unholy marriage indeed.
Well, I looked to an authority that we can all agree with to clarify this matter. I found John Calvin, who said, "Christ . . . once for all offered a sacrifice of eternal expiation and reconciliation; now, having also entered the sanctuary of heaven, he intercedes for us. In him we are all priests (Rev. 1:6; cf. 1 Peter 2:9), but to offer praises and thanksgiving, in short, to offer ourselves and ours to God. It was his office alone to appease God and atone for sins by his offering."
If I am not mistaken, a priest in the Old Testament was one who was authorized, from the house of Aaron, to perform a sacrifice. However, we learn in Hebrews (especially Chapter 10, I believe) that the final sacrifice was on the cross, one sacrifice for all time. It is finished, and Christ has sat at the right hand of the Father. There is no longer a need for sacrifices, and thus what is the role of the priest? (rhetorical question: I understand the Catholic Church affirms that every mass is a sacrifice...wrongly affirms I believe) And why did Paul and the rest of the NT writers neglect to mention a priestly class?
Well, this is a fundamental problem, and one that this space might not be able to handle. I love the Catholic faith more and more, and would ultimately love to be shown that my thinking has been quite muddled about the faith I was born and raised in. However, I simply do not believe that the current practices of the church in Rome are faithful to Christian tradition, starting with the apostle Paul. I do not believe there is room for classes of people in Christianity with the clergy having a higher place on the spiritual ladder. Christians should leave such distinctions to the Hindus, there is no room for that in the church of Christ.
Still, anyone claiming to be a Catholic should bow with reverence at the changes that are being made, and not complain or tie purple cloth all over the church. In church history, the laity have always been, more or less, ignorant of the higher and more beautiful teaching of the church, I am sure of that. For most of history the laity have been farmers and soldiers, not theologians. However, never before have the laity believed they should tell the Pope and the other Bishops what to do. So we now have a strange combination of obnoxious outspokenness coupled with typical ignorance, and that is an unholy marriage indeed.
