In
response to the Vatican's recent statement on homosexual marriage:
Voice of the Faithful takes no position ? Alice Slattery 29 July 03
Now
that the Pope is also asking all Catholics to actively support the Church
teaching on marriage, their negative response has even more serious
implications regarding their belief in the teaching of the Catholic Church on
marriage.
Voice
of the Faithful has responded to the question I e-mailed them regarding the
question as to whether or not they intended to support the Bishops' letter
requesting support for the Marriage Affirmation and Protection Amendment by
having their VOTF Communications Team representative, Luise Dittrich, e-mail me
to say that "VOTF-as we have stated so many times before-takes no position on
sex and gender issues regarding the Church...
Thus,
the Voice of the Faithful will not be petitioning state legislators on this
issue."(e-mail -signed by "Luise Dittrich , VOTF Communications Team", Friday, May
30,2003 ).
Since
VOTF has said they will not respond positively to the request of the Bishops
concerning this vital issue of marriage being defined as the union of one man
and one woman, they why should Bishop O'Malley agree to their advice and
direction?
Now
that the Pope is also asking all Catholics to actively support the Church
teaching on marriage, their negative response has even more serious
implications regarding their belief in the teaching of the Catholic Church on
marriage.
Do
they think that their response really reflects the response of all Catholics?
They do not represent the beliefs of all Catholics. They are acting in a
fraudulent manner when they state that they act for us. When will the media,
esp.. The Boston Globe, tell the truth about this
fraud? ---Alice Slattery
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2003
14:23:47 -0400
From "Edward H MIT
To Comments@FaithfulVoice.com
Subject homosexual marriage
in
response to the Vatican's recent statement on homosexual marriage:
while
the catholic church is certainly entitled to it's opinions on the
issue
of gay marriages, it is not, however, entitled to influence lawmakers
and
politicians on said issue for two very distinct reasons.
first
off, the constitution clearly prohibits the use of religious doctrine as fodder
for
legislation. and secondly, and most importantly, the catholic church's
credibility
has never been in question more that it is at present, and
everyone
knows this -- even the devout catholics in boston who are fed up
with
the hypocrisy of a church who condemns homosexuality while it allowed
members
of it's congregations to be sexually abused for years.
I
give people like C.J. Doyle enough credit to think that he believes he is truly
looking
out for the interests of the catholic community -- i only hope that
he
someday realizes that all he is doing is damaging the already tarnished
and
feeble reputation of the church and alienating intelligent and
compassionate
people like myself.
your
response is most welcome.
-Edward
H , MIT
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2003
18:15:17 EDT
Subject Re: homosexual marraige
Parts
Message
Source
Dear
Edward
You
appear to have great sympathy for any child who has been sexually abused. So do
I ,and any Catholic whom I have encountered feels exactly as you feel. We are
all horrified at the fact that some priest broke their vow of celibacy and
rationalized their acts of violating another person by
same-sex
sex acts.
That
some of them rationalized committing these acts with children pretending that
they were satisfying children, much the same as the Alfred Kinsey
research tried to persuade people that children like to be satisfied ,is an
appalling deception.
Bishop
O'Malley and all Catholics worth their salt in the Boston Archdiocese , have
every intention of making satisfaction for the sins of these deceiving priests
who invaded the innocence of children. Hopefully Bishop O'Malley will also
confront those priests and theologians who, under the guise of the
"proportionalism" and "consequentialism" theories have
encouraged people to "weigh" the "greater good" and the
"lesser evil" of acts that are prohibited by the Ten Commandments.
The
beliefs of the ten Commandments are clearly explained in the Catechism of the
Catholic Church. Look at #2351-#2400. You will readily see that the reasons why
homosexual acts are included as sins of lust against the 6th
Commandment and are therefore prohibited because "Basing
itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave
depravity, tradition has always declared "homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They
close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine
affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be
approved."
Those
who try to rationalize these acts under the deceptive theories of the 'greater
good' and the "lesser evil" are doing exactly what Fr. Paul Shanley
did when he told a boy who was considering acting out in a homosexual manner
that he would help him to keep from acting this way by meeting with him and
they could act out mutual masturbation which would be a "lesser evil and a
"greater good". How's that for rationalizing! Pope John Paul II in
his
1993
encyclical, Veritatis Splendor, addresses this false teaching of
proportionalism and consequentialism as a very serious deception that some
theologians are trying to perpetrate on laypeople. Perhaps you have fallen into
their trap! This false thinking would rationalize the acts of two men who
decided to live in a homosexual manner with each other engaging in homosexual
acts and rationalize this decision by saying this is a "greater good"
and a "lesser evil' than if they were acting promiscuously.
The
Catholic program Courage which has been approved by the Vatican has helped
hundreds of people to get out of this trap and lead a chaste life according to
the teachings of the Catholic Church. If you are interested I would be glad to
see that you find out more about this organization.
In
between time, I expect that you have been reading about the grave increase of
cases of HIV infections that have occurred in the Boston area in the past 2 years. If you will look at
the Bay Windows article by Ethan Jacobs(www.baywindows.com/news/446895.html) on
July 10,2003("HIV in youth on rise") and at the article in the Globe
on 6/24/03,("Increase seen in HIV/AIDS cases among adolescents, young
adults in Mass.), you will see that the directors of the HIV/AIDS Bureau state
that they believe that children as young as 13,14, and 15(all minors) have been
getting more HIV infections because they are seeking out older gay men.
In
the Globe article, according to Jean McGuire, director of the health
department's HIV/AIDS Bureau and , in the Bay Windows article , Kevin Cranston,
deputy director of the HIV/AIDS Bureau, they state that the fault lies
with "prevention fatigue". Kevin Cranston explains what this means in
the following way: "young gay men are at particular risk for contracting
HIV when they seek out partners in the adult gay community. The higher rates of
HIV infection among older gay men in Massachusetts, many of whom Cranston says
are experiencing "prevention fatigue" and are less careful about
practicing safer sex, puts youth at greater risk for contracting the virus when
they choose adult partners."
These
officials on the HIV/AIDS Bureau appear to be putting the onus of blame on the
children who are only 13,14, and 15 for getting the HIV infection. This is the
same kind of thinking that Fr. Paul Shanley back in the 1960s was claiming! he
blamed young boys for luring older men into engaging in same-sex sex acts
with them! My question to you, Ed, is what are you planning to do to see that
the officials, workers, and volunteers who are connected with the HIV/AIDS
Bureau and any other officials who have information about older men
engaging in homosexual acts with these children ages 13,14, and 15(they were basing
their findings on actual cases of children who contracted the HIV infection!),
report the names of these older gay men to Attorney General Reilly's office?
How
many names have been reported in the past 2 years? We now have much stronger
laws to protect these children. The cases of sexual child abuse involving some
of the priests like Fr. Paul Shanley took place in the 1960's and 1970's.
There
have not been any cases reported about priests in the last 2 years committing
these crimes against children to my knowledge. Children at ages 13,14 and 15
are minors. Even if they appear to be consenting to the acts they are not of a
legal age of consent and therefore the older gay men are to be charged with the
acts of child sexual abuse.
Now,
tell me, Ed, what you plan to do to see that these cases are reported to the
attorney general's office?
You
condemn the entire Catholic Church right up to the right of the Pope and forbid
any of us from stating the teachings of the Catholic Church for all time on the
meaning of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman.
The acts that were perpetrated by some
Catholic priests were perpetrated many years ago and they are being brought to
justice- in fact, many of these cases had been settled by lawyers in out-of-court
settlements many years ago but are again being brought out for more settlement
money now. The cases that are clearly evident from the articles in Bay Windows
and the Globe are happening right here and now ! There are many, many people
who support same-sex sex acts who are deliberately turning a blind eye to
these cases of child sexual abuse. Do you know of any of these cases that have
been reported?
Or
,do you, too., blame these cases of HIV infection on "prevention
fatigue" and see only one solution-MORE CONDOM INSTRUCTION- so that these
older gay men can have their way with these minor children? I certainly
hope that that is not your position and i hope that you will advocate for
the need to report these older gay men and for the media to do the investigation of these cases to the full
extent that the media investigated the abuse of some of the Catholic priests
years ago that happened before the laws were tightened to protect all children
from the sexually abusive acts of "older gay men".
Please
let me know if you will be unearthing this deception.
Sincerely,
Alice
Slattery@FaithfulVoice.com
Date Wed, 30 Jul 2003
13:32:52 -0400
From "Edward H
MIT.EDU>
To rosarycampaign@faithfulvoice.com
Subject Re: homosexual marraige
Alice
--
first
of all, i'd like to thank you for your kind and prompt response.
with
your permission, i'd like to take issue with several of your
contentions. as you said, the scriptures clearly
state that homosexuality
is
considered a sin. but in doing so you proved my point. the constitution
clearly
prohibits legislation based on the assertions of religious
doctrine. it's not my intention, nor my right to
"condemn the entire
Catholic
Church right up to the right of the Pope and forbid any of us from
stating
the teachings of the Catholic Church for all time on the meaning of
marriage
as being the union of one man and one woman", but the constitution
dictates
that the place for these teachings is in the church and not in our
law
books.
In
addition, i agree with you that sexual acts between minors and adults is
an
unspeakable crime (whether it's considered consensual or not) but it's
important
to point out that this type of thing does not only occur between
men
and boys, nor do the gay men who perpetrate these crimes represent a
significant
portion of the gay community.
If you recall, several
years
ago
a female 4th grade teacher was impregnated by one of her students. i
find
it suspicious that this example would be considered an isolated
incident,
while among gay men it would be considered common practice.
the
link between the proliferation of AIDS/HIV and the legalization of gay
marriage
simply doesn't exist and so, to be honest, i'm not even sure why
you
mentioned it. among gay men, AIDS
is spread by unprotected sex, and a
ban
on gay marriage will not prevent homosexual sex anymore than legalizing
gay
marriage will encourage it.
Every
argument against the legalization of gay marriage is predicated on a
belief
that there is something inherently wrong with being homosexual, and
as
that constitutes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it's
against
the law -- plain and simple.
everyone is entitled to their
beliefs,
but not everyone (and particularly not the catholic church or any
religious
institution) is entitled to enforce those beliefs upon others
through
legislation.
lastly
i strongly disagree with the idea that homosexuality is "contrary to
the
natural law". in fact,
nothing could be further from the
truth. homosexuality has been well documented
in the animal kingdom -- not
only
among people, and it has been proven for some time now that
homosexuality
is the result of genetic coding which takes place during the
gestation
period. while occurrences may be
infrequent, it is no more
unnatural
than a birthmark.
i'm
sure that at this point you must assume that i myself am gay, but i'm
not
-- i'm simply tired of seeing people be denied basic rights because of
something
that they cannot help. it would be
unthinkable to deny the right
of
marriage to fat people, and yet people who are overweight tend to be so
because
of their own unhealthy lifestyle -- something they can
help. there's a clear double standard here,
and it's just not right.
in
closing, i'd just like to say that it is refreshing to be able to engage
in
a debate over issues as sensitive as these while maintaining a high
level
of courtesy and diplomacy. as
always, your response is most welcome.
thanks
very much,
edward
h
Date Tue, 30 Jul 2003
18:15:17 EDT
Subject Re: homosexual marraige
Edward,
Because
a belief is held by a religious organization , such as the Catholic Church,
does not mean that that belief cannot be defended and protected in the area of
government. That would mean that no person, who is Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, or
any religious organization that believes in the Ten Commandments , could ever
defend or protect a belief that is inherent in the Ten Commandments.
If
that was true, then we could never say that stealing is wrong, that murder is
wrong, that pornography is wrong, that slander is wrong, and so on. In fact we
would have no basis for our laws since English Law was based on the Ten
Commandments when the laws were first developed.
Maybe
you think that the laws should have been developed from random, chance ideas.
Now that would leave us in a truly chaotic state of affairs! Separation of
Church and state is an imaginary theory that atheists would like to thrust upon
us. They would select random, chance ideas over anything that reflected the Ten
Commandments! Thank God that He gave us the Ten Commandments! otherwise
we would have chaos!
Regards,
Alice
p.s.
The intent ,of the author , was to keep the Church protected from the influence
of the State.
As
each State had its own church at the time of writing . ex Maryland = Catholic.
Etc
Date: 31 Jul 2003
Subject: Re:
Faithful Voice article
Mr.
Edward H.
You
state the following in your reply to Mrs. Slattery:
"...as
you said, the scriptures clearly state that homosexuality is considered a
sin.
but in doing so you proved my point.
the constitution clearly prohibits
legislation
based on the assertions of religious doctrine. it's not my
intention,
nor my right to "condemn the entire Catholic Church right up to the
right
of the Pope and forbid any of us from stating the teachings of the Catholic
Church
for all time on the meaning of marriage as being the union of one man and
one
woman", but the constitution dictates that the place for these teachings
is
in
the church and not in our law books." (end quote).
Mr. H., thankfully, this isn't an issue
of religion. This is an issue of
the
Natural
Law as wonderfully elaborated on by St. Thomas Aquinas. I think that
once
you understand that this is an affront to the Natural Law, you will see that
the
rest of your argument doesn't stand.
Homosexuality is a question not just
for a "religious dimension", rather it is
first
on the level of the Natural Law.
The Church works with that.
To place
this
issue of homosexuality solely as religious doctrine is pathologically absurd
once
you see that the teachings don't stem from Leviticus or Romans, or whatever
Biblical
citation (although they do play their part in ELABORATING on the Natural
Law). The level you need to discuss this with
first is the Natural Law.
With
all due respect and regards,
-Kevin
J. Sy, B.A. (M.A. candidate) Theology
Date Fri, 01 Aug 2003
11:49:09 -0400
From "Edward.H MIT.EDU>
Subject Re: homosexual marriage Date:XX 31 Jul 20
Kevin
-- thank you for your reply, but i'm afraid that you, too, are mistaken.
Natural Law is widely believed (especially by Aquinas) to have been handed down
directly from God, or as aquinas puts in in Summa, "Natural
Law is promulgated by Yahweh". In other words, to say that Natural
law is a secular one, or that it's origins and implications are anything but
religious in nature is completely untrue. it should be noted that there
are modern forms of Natural Law theory from philosophers such as karl popper
and friedrich hayek which are not based on theological premises, but these are
physical laws, such as the law of thermodynamics, and do not include rules
which forbid or demand certain modes of conduct. Simply put, the origins
of the sixth commandment which condemns homosexuality, and the origins of
"natural law" as dictated by philosophers such as aquinas are one and
the same.
if
you would contend that homosexuality is unnatural, i'd be happy to expound on
it's causes, both biological and sociological, to help dispel this
misconception.
Please
know, Kevin, that i wouldn't engage in a debate such as this in the first place
if i wasn't already familiar with the opposing arguments and how to refute
them.
respectfully,
Date Fri, 01 Aug 2003
12:28:11 -0400
From R Thomas
Subject Credibility
Edward
H
Dear
Mr. H,
You
have opened your debate with the subject of credibility:
the
catholic
>
> > church's
>
> > credibility has never been in question more that it is at
present,
>
and
>>>
> > everyone knows this
>>
>>
It
seems that a country which is dealing with the highest crime rate in
the
industrial world, with a fourth of its population suffering from
sexually
transmitted diseases (as high as 40% in certain age
categories),
with the constant risk of not even being able to meet the
nation's
blood supply, with abuse cases happening on a weekly basis in
the
school system, with the fraud rate in insurance so high that
everybody's
premiums are skyrocketing, not to mention the new phenomenon
of
"mass murders" happening all over the place, along with other
patterns
of social disintegration; we
should be more even-handed in
talking
about the "catholic church's credibility", especially since
statistics
in France consistently showed that the countries crime rate
decreased
when religion was taught in schools and increased when it was
taken
out.
More
specifically, rape is epidemic on campuses and Universities only
recently
when forced began to break their
secretive culture of handling
those
crimes privately.
This
week's paper carried another case of
abuse at MIT and possibly you
have
forgotten about the death at an MIT frate drinking party or the MIT
scientists
who performed radiation experiments on unsuspecting subjects.
We
all have to be humble at the extent of human frailty and capacity for evil.
R
Thomas