I'm not a theologian -- not even a model Catholic -- but I do take my faith and the teachings of my Church seriously. Thus I've been thinking about Amendment One here in NC, and trying to figure out how it fits with Church teachings and my own conscience, because my bishop is saying one thing, and my conscience another. After due consideration, I've come to the conclusion that Bishop Jugis is wrong to support the amendment.
The Church holds that marriage is a sacramental, lifelong union between one man and one woman, founded in the love between the partners and for the procreation of children; however, it blesses sacramental marriages between infertile and post-fertile opposite sex couples. Thus its position is prima facie contradictory, but let that lie for now.
Even granting the Church's definition of marriage, I believe Bishop Jugis's endorsement of Amendment One violates the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae. Here are some excerpts from that document, with the most relevant language highlighted by me. Pardon the length.
In brief, the Declaration says very clearly that the state should neither coerce nor prevent people from pursuing religious activity either in public or private. Catholic married life is certainly such an activity: married Catholics are specifically called to witness to the Gospel in our vocation to marriage both in private and in public. And the state recognizes our marriages and grants us certain legal and civil rights accruing to it.
It's also the case that many churches bless same-sex marriage. Yet the Bishop argues that the state should deny them the same civil rights granted to traditional married couples, in direct contradiction to the Declaration's decree that "government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens."
Bishop Jugis also says that voting for Amendment One will "promote traditional marriage in our state." His presumption seems to be that allowing same-sex unions will erode traditional marriage. But it's hard to see how prohibiting same-sex unions will encourage more people to get married, or persuade married people to stay married. It hardly needs to be said that our divorce rates are a great scandal to Christian witness, and in this regard, I was curious whether permitting or prohibiting same-sex unions has any effect on divorce rates.
I looked at the U.S. Census figures on divorce rates in the states that recognize same-sex unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) as compared to those states whose constitutions prohibit them (Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).
The good news is that divorce rates have been declining in all those states. The more interesting news is that, since 2000, the rate of decline of divorce rates in the states that recognize same-sex unions has been almost twice as steep as in those that prohibit them in their constitutions. (The pro-same-sex states showed an average decline of .7 divorces per 1000 people from 2000-2009, the anti-same-sex states showed an average decline of .4.)
Does same sex-marriage therefore actually promote more stable marriages? Doubtful. Correlation does not prove causation. But for whatever reason, the states that recognize same-sex unions seem to have more respect for the institution of marriage (not to mention religious freedom) than do those that constitutionally prohibit it.
Thus, with all due respect to my bishop, I dissent. I will vote against Amendment One.
The Church holds that marriage is a sacramental, lifelong union between one man and one woman, founded in the love between the partners and for the procreation of children; however, it blesses sacramental marriages between infertile and post-fertile opposite sex couples. Thus its position is prima facie contradictory, but let that lie for now.
Even granting the Church's definition of marriage, I believe Bishop Jugis's endorsement of Amendment One violates the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae. Here are some excerpts from that document, with the most relevant language highlighted by me. Pardon the length.
A sense of the dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man, and the demand is increasingly made that men should act on their own judgment, enjoying and making use of a responsible freedom, not driven by coercion but motivated by a sense of duty. The demand is likewise made that constitutional limits should be set to the powers of government, in order that there may be no encroachment on the rightful freedom of the person and of associations. This demand for freedom in human society chiefly regards the quest for the values proper to the human spirit. It regards, in the first place, the free exercise of religion in society.
***
Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society.
***
This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.
***
Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious. The reason is that the exercise of religion, of its very nature, consists before all else in those internal, voluntary and free acts whereby man sets the course of his life directly toward God. No merely human power can either command or prohibit acts of this kind. The social nature of man, however, itself requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion: that he should share with others in matters religious; that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life, if the free exercise of religion is denied in society, provided just public order is observed.
***
Government therefore ought indeed to take account of the religious life of the citizenry and show it favor, since the function of government is to make provision for the common welfare. However, it would clearly transgress the limits set to its power, were it to presume to command or inhibit acts that are religious.
***
The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man ranks among the essential duties of government. Therefore government is to assume the safeguard of the religious freedom of all its citizens, in an effective manner, by just laws and by other appropriate means.
***
Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.
***
The right to religious freedom is exercised in human society: hence its exercise is subject to certain regulatory norms. In the use of all freedoms the moral principle of personal and social responsibility is to be observed. In the exercise of their rights, individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all. Men are to deal with their fellows in justice and civility.
In brief, the Declaration says very clearly that the state should neither coerce nor prevent people from pursuing religious activity either in public or private. Catholic married life is certainly such an activity: married Catholics are specifically called to witness to the Gospel in our vocation to marriage both in private and in public. And the state recognizes our marriages and grants us certain legal and civil rights accruing to it.
It's also the case that many churches bless same-sex marriage. Yet the Bishop argues that the state should deny them the same civil rights granted to traditional married couples, in direct contradiction to the Declaration's decree that "government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens."
Bishop Jugis also says that voting for Amendment One will "promote traditional marriage in our state." His presumption seems to be that allowing same-sex unions will erode traditional marriage. But it's hard to see how prohibiting same-sex unions will encourage more people to get married, or persuade married people to stay married. It hardly needs to be said that our divorce rates are a great scandal to Christian witness, and in this regard, I was curious whether permitting or prohibiting same-sex unions has any effect on divorce rates.
I looked at the U.S. Census figures on divorce rates in the states that recognize same-sex unions (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont) as compared to those states whose constitutions prohibit them (Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Virginia).
The good news is that divorce rates have been declining in all those states. The more interesting news is that, since 2000, the rate of decline of divorce rates in the states that recognize same-sex unions has been almost twice as steep as in those that prohibit them in their constitutions. (The pro-same-sex states showed an average decline of .7 divorces per 1000 people from 2000-2009, the anti-same-sex states showed an average decline of .4.)
Does same sex-marriage therefore actually promote more stable marriages? Doubtful. Correlation does not prove causation. But for whatever reason, the states that recognize same-sex unions seem to have more respect for the institution of marriage (not to mention religious freedom) than do those that constitutionally prohibit it.
Thus, with all due respect to my bishop, I dissent. I will vote against Amendment One.
5 comments:
Here endeth the lesson.
Regretfully the Catholic Hierarchy does not allow priests to preach from their hearts but from the memo from the Diocese.
So much silence from so many other denominations as well.
eloquent. introspective. truthful.
thank you, david.
I'd 'bout given up hope that any Roman Catholic on either side would address this issue in the context of "Dignitatis Humanae."
Well written and well done.
What they said above me and yasher koach (literally, "may you have strength" and not so literally, "live long and prosper")!
I'm Catholic too and voting against Amendment One. So are many others who go to my church here in Raleigh. I wasn't surprised to get the postcard from the 2 NC Catholic bishops urging us to vote 'YES' but I was saddened by it. I think they have brought down the 'silence' order on any NC priests who oppose it (and I know there are more than a few!)
Post a Comment