www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Where are the Bishops?

Dear Brendan,

Whether it is or is not, the fact remains, Counsellor, that morality does indeed come into play, and especially, it would seem, in your American political culture.

You wouldn't have the posturing of politicians and even legal people toward the Religious Right and the Pro-Life Lobby if it didn't.

The abortion issue in the U.S. seems to be an ongoing struggle to see who can "win" in the end etc.

The same is true of homosexual acceptance. One may argue that their rights are already protected and that they consequently need no "special protections."

But others will make the argument that there is something that the law is simply powerless to fully prevent - institutional discrimination.

And, for this reason, additional and overt legal protections are necessary.

I take no position in that argument other than to say our Canadian laws suffice for everyone.

I think there is a greater sense of distance between morality in general and maintaining the public peace via law in Canada than in the U.S. which is what the issue here is.

I see it consistently expressed by politicians of all stripes and so have difficulty appreciating the American political approach to involving morality in issues governing the maintenance of the public peace.

I frankly think that the way your system allows political foes to go after one another via the media is disgusting and it would never be allowed here.

Alex

I think that Canadians and Americans certainly have their differences! Its sort of like the relationship between Australia and New Zealand on a larger scale, don't you think (I've heard more than one Australian confide to me that he thinks Australians have more in common with Americans than Canadians -- strange!)?

Yes, there is a backdrop to the issue as you note, but legally that's not what's going to win the day. Historically the court has been very skittish about creating new protected classes under the equal protection clause (they've famously resisted extending the "strict scrutiny" applied to race to other categories, such as gender, in spite of many spirited, well-funded and vociferous attempts to do so), and this court is particularly conservative, so my guess is that it is unlikely that a new class will be created by this particular court.

Brendan

Dear Cantor Joseph,

The article carried by EWTN does indeed include "(gay)."

And if it is wrong and a misquote, shouldn't EWTN be the first to withdraw and offer an apology?

But, sorry, you said you didn't do EWTN!

How is it that our Administrator knows more about this than EWTN?

He knows more about the Eastern Churches than EWTN.

Perhaps he's in the wrong profession?

Alex

Alex, nothing I wrote suggested that the various types of deviant behavior are all at the same level and Christianity (especially Roman Catholicism) doesn�t either. I only suggested that if you choose to remove societal discrimination against one type of deviant behavior then you must logically remove it against all types of deviant behavior. If we are not to appeal to Judeo-Christian morality as our standard than our standard becomes consensus, which simply cannot be a standard.

This statement is illogical. To support legislation that prohibits stealing, for example, does not automatically discriminate against those who might be tempted to steal. Likewise, someone who publicly states Christian teaching regarding the immorality of homosexual sexual behavior is not automatically discrimination against homosexuals. You are correct that some in our society have sought to legally force Christians to accept such behavioral choices as acceptable. Speaking out against something that is morally wrong is not an automatic condemnation of an individual who might have a tendency towards that immoral behavior.

Please read me earlier post. I think that the reporter purposely distorted the senator�s comments in order to make it look like he was supporting discrimination against individuals rather than chosen behaviors.

I have not stated that. I have only stated that the logic of his argument fails from the perspective of Christian morality.

I have not suggested that is the same. I have only suggested that if you reject the Judeo-Christian morality for one type of chosen behavior then you must reject it for all types of chosen behaviors.

Alex,

Ever since our late Archbishop was accused of staging a "showdown" with Rome, I began to doubt their intentions in getting the story straight.

Joe

Posted by J Thur:

"Again, was it Senator Santorum who inserted the term "gay" in 'consensual sex?' Mr. Administrator notes how it was an AP reporter who included that word. Hmmmmmmmm.

It must be campaign season again."

Dear Joe,

It is off to the electoral races indeed! However, a reading of Senator Santorum's comments does seem to indicate that he associates homosexual behavior with incest, polygamy,etc. At least it seems so to me.

Links to those comments and other associated articles can be found at CNN.com by searching using Santorum and homosexuality as the search terms. There are like reports on AP.

Following one such link on CNN brings the news that the head of a group (church) made up of Mormon polygamists protests that polygamists should not be associated with the likes of homosexuals and persons practicing incest. The polygamists cite the Bible as their authority for their beliefs and their practices.

Steve

Dear Alex,
Two things.

So in your view, as stated here, it is uncharitable to point out when someone is stating something that is false?


The original AP news wire did not have the word gay in it. The later ones did, this was an addition as the Admin notes. It is not EWTN's fault or job to correct the news wire, it is AP's job to do so.

This is a fact that has been widely reported here in the States on Talk Radio. Just because you do not have access to this news does not make it so.

Also how can we truly judge what the Senator is saying with out looking at the transcript of the whole interview which is only about a case coming up before the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of Texas' sodomy laws.

In this case the plaintiff in the case is arguing that the state has no right to interfere in one's sexual life (in the form of anti-sodomy laws) on the grounds that it violates our constitutional right to privacy.


David

Sheesh. I made a response post after dinner last night, and today at the end of lunch there are 5 pages. Don't any of you folks work for a living?!? (Or are you stealing your employer's time!!!!)

My only concern is the question of how far the government and its 'agents' (for want of a better word)can go in determining personal behavior, especially behavior that is not practiced in public and that does not include an involuntary victim.

For myself, I don't relish the idea of the government snooping in my home to find out what I read (they can do that now through the Patriot Act), what I watch on TV, what videos I rent (they can legally check that now, too) or whom I talk to on the phone (the Patriot Act also allows this without a court order).

Those who suggest that we use our widely varying interpretations of Christian morality as a yardstick for public behavior (if Christians could ever reach a consensus) should realize that under other circumstances, we might find ourselves subject to laws that reflect a morality that is both alien and offensive. (E.g., Christians in Islamic Republic countries, or -in the old days - Catholics in "reformation" countries, etc.)

What we are now seeing is distress among "religious" folks who perceive themselves to be living in an atheistic or ir-religious US, a land that is insensitive to their religious sensibilities.

But I think that the appropriate response to this is not through legislation that circumscribes a person's behavior, but rather through letting the "Christian light shine" so that others see that the Gospel is the perfect way to live. One doesn't make believers through coercion, even though many Islamics used to think so and some still do. Nor does one make converts by enacting legislation that drives or circumscribes behavior: "you will offer one goat to the Shrine of the Emperor".

One makes converts to the Gospel by being the most wonderful people around. "Behold these Christians, see how they LOVE one another!!" As for our personal behavior, it should be in concord with the teachings of the Gospel. -- But there may be many interpretations of that teaching. (How many of us have sold all their possessions for the furtherance of the Kingdom? Or give a full 10% of all income?)

Christ is Risen!!

(Thanks to theophilus for the detailed posting, especially for the section on the natural law. for me very thought provoking.)

But, getting away from the legalities of it, if the issue with the Senator's remarks is that he lumps together homosexual activity with incest and polygamy, on the one hand, and the belief that these are in fact different, on the other hand, does that substantively make sense?

In other words, if the only criterion is community standard, then I suppose what we are left with is a changing criterion over time and place. Some places on earth today think polygamy is a fine thing, and do not prohibit it. Why, then, should we? What of the millions of Muslims who live in the USA? Shouldn't they be allowed to practice their traditional polygamy, even though that offends the "residual judeo-christian" values that underlie American society? Isn't that kind of law a law that specifically discriminates against traditionalist Mormons as well as Muslims? Isn't it then a violation of the right to exercise one's religion?

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Not only Australians, but Canadians too want to be like the Americans.

Until they face health care issues . . .

And Americans seem mesmerized by British culture too!

Even without the matter of judicial votes, it would certainly be bad to create special protections for anyone since, historically, such things tended to be a real social/political liability to groups (you are well acquainted with our laws governing our Native Peoples).

The law is really powerless to effect real changes in attitudes and without such, things such as institutional discrimination over time persist against groups.

I just don't understand why Americans politically link morality with the law so intimately (no pun intended).

Our judiciary and indeed most people up here see it in terms of "Live your life the way you want and you shouldn't be discriminated against - the fact that you are this or that doesn't make us feel insecure."

And I just can't believe the attitude of surprise of some here when public decisions are made that go against Christian principles.

Have we been living in a bubble or what?

Happy Pascha!

Alex

Alex,

I read about six online transcripts of the senator's remarks. Also, Laura Jakes (the reporter) seems to have acknowledged this in that the AP releases were quitely revised to provide an accurate account of the senator's remarks.

Admin

Of course, we are dealing with different types of unconventional sexual behavior.

But why include the term "gay" in 'consensual sex' if he didn't say it?

This reminds me of how the term "alone" was added to "Scripture" to get "Scripture alone." This does change the context qualitatively and is misleading.

Dear Administrator,

O.K., I was just wondering . . .

Alex

First, one can make an argument that the U.S. Revolution was over 'principles' rather than totalitarian treatment by the British.

Do you suggest that law should ignore morality?

Second, some legal decisions were made based on lies to the court, not on popular vote. In this can be seen manipulators.

Dear David,

Up here in our parliamentary system, when a politician says another is "lying" or words to that effect, it is deemed "unparliamentary" and the person is asked to withdraw by Mr. Speaker.

The language itself is uncharitable, period.

With or without the inclusion of "gay," I think the same issues would have surfaced anyway - the tone of the good Senator leaves little doubt as to what he meant.

But, you are right, putting words in someone else's mouth is wrong.

And I think we should give Brian the benefit of the doubt and ask him or anyone here to explain themselves before passing judgement.

Alex