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

I must ask those who think the Senator said anything wrong where in the U.S. Constitution does it say that we have the right to privacy?
The answer is nowhere. The right to privacy stems from case law. In fact the 1963 case Griswold v. Conn which determined that there is a basic right to privacy. This case then allowed the Court to rule the way that they did in Roe v. Wade.
The Senator is right because if one allows that absolute privacy then it will become a slippery slope for other illegal acts to become legal.
Let us not forget that we chose our leaders based on our own sense of morality. This has always been the case and will continue to be the case because one can not separate one's own morality when creating law. If one could then why do so many people consirn themselves with judges personal opinions on the topic of abortion.
I think the fine Senator said and did nothing wrong. He said that he has nothing against homosexuals just there acts, which is what the church has to say on the topic. He should not step down because there is no reason to he did nothing wrong but make a legal agruement. Should we ask anyone to step down because of and unpopular statement? If so why don't we ask all who opposed the war to step down.
Thank You

Dr. John:

Christos Anesti!

I don�t want you to think that I am picking on you, but your original post in this thread is filled with so many questionable assertions that I cannot let it pass in silence. Why it matters to you I�m not sure, but I will preface these remarks by noting that I have not yet reached the age of 30 and have never been to a totalitarian or authoritarian country (though I�ve been to post-communist Slovakia and Hungary).

You said: �His major premise is: if we allow people to do things in their homes that we don't like, then they will do them. If, however, we determine that certain things should NOT be do-able in the home, then we can provide strictures that will jail them for violating the 'common good' as interpreted by x, y or z persons.�

Why put the �common good� in quotes, as if it doesn�t or can�t exist? Are you suggesting this? If so, I wonder how you are able to criticize anything any government does. Does not your demand for greater personal freedom (�freedom from,� which Isaiah Berlin called �negative liberty� and Constant �the liberty of the moderns�) stand on a particular understanding of the common good, albeit one that is fairly thin?

You then state: �The problem is twofold: who decides what is acceptable PRIVATE behavior? And, secondly: is there a framework for determining which 'private behavior' should be hunted down by the authorities?�

Please define �private� behavior. And please help me understand how what we think, say, and do in our own homes or bedrooms does not have some impact on what we think, say, and do in our so-called �public� lives. The fact of intersubjectivity � that we are born into a world inhabited by others and have continual contact and interaction with those others � would seem to suggest that nothing I ever do simply affects me.

Who decides what is acceptable? In a constitutional representative democracy, the �who� is the people through their representatives, within the parameters sent by the fundamental law.

More important is your question of �how,� i.e. the framework for decision-making. There are three separate considerations: whether an action or behavior is immoral and therefore proscribable; whether it can legally be proscribed given the constitution and other positive laws; and, if these conditions be met, whether it makes for good public policy to proscribe such an action.

For example, the issue of homosexuality: Is it immoral behavior? Yes. How do we know and � this is key since we live in a multicultural, multireligious society � can we justify our conception of its immorality to others. This means that appeals to Leviticus or Romans are not sufficient. One can appeal to revelation (see the civil rights struggle, the debate over slavery), but ultimately we need to make our case in an idiom that non-Christians can understand. We thus fall back on the natural law, and attempt to make our case through appeals rooted in reason and experience.

Assuming the case can be made � I�m a bit agnostic as to whether it can � we then turn to whether the immoral action or behavior can legally be proscribed. You say it cannot, and assert the following: �our Constitution and legal system state clearly that there must be a victim, a person who is clearly forced to do something that he/she would not want to do. In terms of 'civil liberties', if people are coerced, then they have the full weight of the law behind them. If people are NOT coerced, and do things of their own free will (like smoking, or drinking or getting fat and taking up two seats on the bus or airplane)- and there are no further victims - then the state must back off. It's called 'freedom'.�

Of course, you fail to mention here that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution as amended, no right to do whatever we want so long as it doesn�t harm others (whatever �harm� means � and certainly there is nothing self-evident or axiomatic about limiting it to physical harm or harm to other people), and that Bowers v. Hardwick upheld the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws. May I also remind you that the 10th Amendment � which states that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people" � has always been interpreted to mean that states have the inherent right to exercise police power, which is authority to preserve the public health, safety, MORALS, and general welfare.

Your conception of civil liberties is a neat libertarian trick, but it does NOT represent what the Constitution actually says. You seem to think that the U.S. was established as a purely liberal-libertarian polity, along the lines of Locke�s umpire state. Needless to say, though liberalism was an important ingredient in the making of our constitution, it wasn�t the only one, as Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and others have shown. The participatory republican tradition of politics and the Puritan conception of government, community, and freedom also played central roles.

Given that there is nothing in our public law that would prevent us from making homosexual activity a crime, the third step is the prudential question: does it make sense, from a public policy perspective, to outlaw such behavior? Here, politicians are charged with deciding whether the immorality of homosexual behavior impacts the common good to such an extent that it should be proscribed. As with all prudential judgments, there is usually no clear-cut answer � hence the need for POLITICS, the collective search to determine the best way to maintain the common good.

Your equation of this process with Stalinism, Nazism, and Maoism is laughable and exceedingly difficult to comprehend. Are you saying that any and all restrictions on what you call �freedom� � a definition much in doubt, I must reiterate � necessarily leads down the slippery slope to totalitarianism? The rest of your argument assumes this slippery slope, eventually leading to the absurd, relativist claim that all should be free to live �as he/she deems right.� I�m sorry, but that�s a major cop-out and hardly consonant with the fact that the world in which we live has been created and ordered by God.

In Christ,
Theophilos

Lemko --

It has to do with enforcement. Adultery, for example, is a crime in many jurisdictions, as is sodomy, but neither of these crimes is enforced, and that's probably sensible.

The issue I raised is that the family courts have taken this to another level by effectively nullifying the divorce statutes that provide that adultery of one spouse is a ground for a "fault" divorce, and refuse to take this into consideration when dividing assets, regulating custody and the like. It's viewed by most courts as being irrelevant. That's really unfortunate, because it has an impact on how people behave. Perhaps if folks considered that there were consequences to their behavior (real ones in terms of money, assets and kids), they would think twice about committing adultery, but the judicial trend is in the exact opposite direction. It's really hard to say that this doesn't have an impact on behavior.

Brendan

His remarks equating being gay with incest etc were extremely harmful and insulting not least I'm sure to his many gay and lesbian constituents. It is quite easy to hide behind "oh I'm only condemning the act not the people" Sorry. It is PEOPLE who are affected by these statements and bigoted and violent acts result from them. I know of being beaten by those who think they have a sanction from their Church to do such a thing. Senator Santorum should certainly think twice about the impact of his statements in future.

But the case being heard by the Supreme Court concerns such a law -- the one concerning sodomy -- being enforced. You're right, when's the last time you heard of adultery being prosecuted? But it does happen with the sodomy laws, and in this case, it singles out homosexual people and not heterosexual people who may "commit" the same "acts" but with different legal/criminal consequences.

A further consequence of such laws (homosexual-only sodomy laws) is that even a celibate homosexual person can be rejected as a candidate for adopting a child on the basis of the probability (even if unproven or without conviction) that he/she commits such "crimes". Likewise for employment. Now then, if being a celibate homosexual is OK in the eyes of the Catholic Church (which it supposedly is), what does the Church have to say about the effect of homosexual-only sodomy laws? That celibate homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children or be protected from employment discrimination?

If Senator Santorum is (rightly, according to his Catholic faith) distinguishing between homosexual "orientation" and homosexual "acts" then he must also recognize that homosexual-only sodomy laws nevertheless can be used as a basis for discrimination against even celibate homosexual people. And I hope that he would recognize that such an effect is unjust and perhaps also unconstitutional.

Where did the Senator say "go out and beat up gay people"? I thought he said something like "I don't approve of homosexual acts". He has every right to say the latter, as a matter of free speech, and it isn't hateful but rather a reflection of his own moral convictions.

But the constitutional analysis is, I think, reasonably clear following Bowers v. Hardwick. Sexual orientation is not a "protected class" under the equal protection clause, so an equal protection/due process analysis of laws that even on their face disciminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation (which this law does not) does not receive the heightened scrutiny that a racially discriminatory law would. The real issue is that gays and lesbians want to be treated as a protected class under the equal protection clause, akin to race, and that has never been recognized by the court. Even gender is not in the "strict scrutiny" category, but receives a kind of "middle scrutiny" under the equal protection clause.

Dear Anthony,

Certainly, there are politicians and then there are politicians!

I was speaking in general terms about those who deliberately use religion to get on the good side of the religious vote.

I continue to work happily for a politician who is a conscientious Christian, who despite his many responsibilities never misses his weekly Anglican Eucharist and who even comes out for Eastern Church services at Christmas and Easter!

Another example of religion at the grass-roots is the use of the Lord's Prayer in schools.

I worked with one politician to develop a petition to put the Prayer back into our public school system (we have a fully-funded Catholic school system as well and I would love for them to take prayer seriously too ).

The petition was met with wild success with thousands of signatures being presented in the House weekly.

Even the previous government under whose administration the prayer was removed came out, now in Opposition, in support of a "review of the whole matter."

Our democratic system is truly wonderful, but to limit it, as I've said, to voting for this or that politician is only a small part of the story.

The more politically active Christians can get, the better the chances they have of effecting some real legal, legislative and moral changes.

From what I gather, the American political culture allows one to really focus on a political candidate and go after him or her.

That's fine, but personalities are simply a smoke screen to cover up what must really be done by way of political activism to take hold of the political system.

I've seen the people rise up and make their voice heard on traditional religious and heritage issues.

It can be done. I've seen it done.

And your Senator can be an important partner in the political forum in this respect and it would seem he has already earned wide support from what you have said.

Alex

The Court has agreed to review this again in this present term

Dear Friends,

The issues of homosexual acts and the treatment of homosexuals, while distinct, are certainly related.

And it is quite the quagmire.

We had a piece of legislation touted by a new government in the early nineties that, if passed, would grant protections to the gay community that, in effect, it already enjoyed along with the rest of the population under our current laws.

It was more about politics than gay rights, in effect.

There were members of the gay community who protested against it, saying they were being exploited by politicians and said they would rather be "like everyone else" in the human rights department.

Others maintained that such legislation would make gays more "visible" and more open to attack and discrimination . . .

In short, there was not one single response to this from the gay community, some being in favour, others against.

In the end, vocal gay activists stormed the building when the bill was voted down etc.

I don't know about your American situation, but in ours up here, I don't believe anyone wants to promote the gay lifestyle in the schools.

But no one is going to say anything against homosexuals or even homosexuality - and not in the Catholic schools either, it is a subject left alone or else the matter of gay discrimination is discussed alone.

Nor would it ever be a political issue.

In fact, reps from all levels of the government, municipal, provincial and federal, turn up for the annual "Gay Pride" parades. Our mayor comes out for it regularly. He is a practicing Jew and says he wants the gay community to know he is "their mayor" as well.

Our gay community in Toronto operates very much like an ethnic group - with their own flag and symbols, their own, yes, church et al.

When I worked in government outreach, all the Conservative Members with large gay constituencies asked for speeches et al. for their participation in their local Gay Pride Day activities - much to the chagrin of central office.

Frankly, the tone and character of the discussion of this entire issue here is something that must be purely American since you'd never find people talking about it in this way here.

And when we developed the Holocaust Memorial Day Act, there was no question but that the fact that homosexuals were victims along with the Jews, the Roma and the disabled was going to be mentioned in it.

Quite apart from a consideration of morality, the fact of the presence of our gay community here is simply that - a fact.

They are involved politically and make their presence and wants known to politicians on whose votes they depend on.

When the New Testament tells me that such behaviour is wrong, I take it on face value, along with many others.

But ultimately, it is not we who will judge individual homosexuals and their consciences on the Last Day.

And God makes His sun to shine on us all.

Alex

Dear Administrator,

Our laws and their subsequent interpretation have already drawn the link between acts of discrimination and violence against homosexuals and public denunciations of homosexuality.

It is like saying, "Homosexuality is vile and immoral!"

And then, in the same breath making the attempt to be credible by saying, "But, hold on, don't bully those gays."

According to the way the law is now applied, if you've made the first statement, you're already implicated in having encouraged the outcome of what you say you are advocating against in the second.

Alex

It seems like all of the problem on this particular thread comes from the basic disconnect between the Law of God and the Law of the World. Take it back prior to the arrival of the Romans (the conquerors, not the scriptural letter).

There was no civil law for the OT Jews (the Israel of God). All law was religious law. What under the sun is not covered by the scriptures? There is still a powerful cadre of Jews who argue against an Israeli state with its own laws. They argue, "if we were to live by God's laws, who could defeat us? Why do we need civil laws? If we don't live by God's laws, then we should face the consequences." In our Holy Friday-ish deepest of hearts, we know that they are right. Has the society/world ever stopped crucifying him?

I really hope that any participant in this forum would take a little time to understand what that means to us, since Eastern and Western Catholics do indeed declare themselves to be the Israel of God. (there is no such thing as "new Israel" in the scriptures). We are under the law of Christ, certainly free from the Levitical laws, but bound by the Commandments, the scriptures, and their manner of self-sacrificial fulfillment in His person!

It matters not what is in the venerable constitution of the United States of America. To the degree that it is in agreement with the Law of Christ, I follow it. To the degree that it is against the Law of Christ, I defy it!

As a relevant aside, I was priveledged to meet the illustrious and devout senator in question at a recent event here at work. He was announcing a $500,000 (USD) donation to Covenant House Pennsylvania from the drug prevention budget of the US government. He was instrumental in its inclusion in the budget.

Senator Santorum has always "put his money where his mouth is." He has a thoroughly consistent voting record and was nearly unseated during his first campaign for re-election. [once again the Lord protected our dear Commonwealth] Despite a powerful lobby of homosexual groups out of, you guessed it, Philadelphia, he never backed down from his deeply-held beliefs and voting pattern. He also has a close relationship with Sr. Mary Rose, President of Covenant House (central-corporate office in NYC).

Before the event, I let the senior management of Covenant House know that I really should be present at the announcement since Senator Santorum might feel uncomfortable if there were no other Republican present in the room. They humored me, good sports that they are.

There were also no bishops there.

In Christ,
Andrew

Brian,

You do seem to be a very negative person (and at times uncharitable) and hold many things that I, and others, see as being incompatible with the Christian faith you are a catechumen in.

You also seem to pick and chose what you will comment on and/or answer. The Admin asked you directly some very pertinent questions that you have seemed to ignore.

But the quote above I must comment on, it is an out right lie and distortion on your part.

No where did the esteemed Senator equate being gay with incest. What he did do is equate homosexual acts with incest. This was a correct thing to do as both are sinful and incompatible with Christain morals.


David

Dear Reader Andrew,

You raise a very important point.

St Thomas More in his Utopia, although a Catholic, did indeed posit the ability of the state to make legal judgements and establish laws that take into consideration more than one religious view.

He even posited the use of prayers other than Catholic or Christian for public, general use.

St Peter himself urged all Christians to "honour the Emperor."

And the emperor in question was more than simply "indifferent" to Christian faith and morals! (He was downright nasty to Christians as you will recall ).

But laws don't necessarily have everything to do with morality.

When German Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists got together to write their "Common Catechism," they affirmed that it was not the job of the state to enact morality of this or that group, but to keep the peace.

And it is all too easy to condemn a society that we feel is moving away from traditional morality.

Perhaps we, as Christians, share some of that blame too?

Alex

By the way, there is no such thing as �a right to do wrong.� Rights � claims against others that they not interfere with the choices we make or the actions in which we engage � attach only to morally permissible (or what some vaguely refer to as �morally indifferent�) acts and choices. A right to do X implies that one does NOT have a duty not to do X. If X is morally wrong, then there IS a duty not to do X.

Therefore, if sodomy is immoral, one cannot assert that people nonetheless have a right to engage in it, because we do have a duty not to engage in it.

To argue that the state should not legislate against sodomy, one cannot appeal to rights but instead must argue that sodomy is not immoral.

This point needs to be kept in mind if we are to maintain some sense of the important distinction between license and liberty.

In Christ,
Theophilos