This is great news, and I'm thrilled that Jonah, the OCA metropolitan, is a signatory:
Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples."We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence," it says.
The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America.
Good for them. This ecumenism of the trenches is a great thing. More of that, please, and less of this, from the Roman Catholic Diocese of San Jose, California, which starts: "Secretly, San Jose is the most gay-friendly diocese in the nation. And now, one parish wants the world to know." My Catholic friend Irene Groot once wrote an essay about her San Jose diocese parish, which removed the crucifix and replaced it with a Jung-inspired "birth canal cross," i.e., a cross with a hole in it where Jesus once was. Which says a lot. Which says everything important about what's going on in that parish, and perhaps in that diocese.
The culture war isn't only between churches and the world, but also between churches that refuse to conform to the world, and those who cannot conform fast enough. I am encouraged and thrilled to know which side of the divide my bishop (who is also my metropolitan) is on. Choose today whom ye will serve...
UPDATE: Here's the text of the Manhattan Declaration, which you are invited to sign:
Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.
We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:the sanctity of human life
the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
the rights of conscience and religious liberty.Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Re: I see marriage as something which shapes, molds, and affects society.
I actually agree with you on this, Erin. and simply as a practical matter I cannot see how to extricate the State now from the marriage business. However I can see the cause of social stability and, yes, even general morality being well-served by some form of formally legitimzied union for homosexual people. The message there after all is that sexual relations belong in formal relationships, not as casual fly-by-night hook-ups in the tradition of "If it feels good, do it". I entirely appreciate objections to calling this "marriage"; as a sacrament (which is not ever what the state enacts) matrimony can only be heterosexual. But I have never been able to see why giving gays (and only gays) civil unions would do any harm whatsoever on anyone else. To me that requires some sort of weird sympathetic magic having more in common with voodoo dolls and like.
That sort of thinking's a bit outdated, don't you think?
Sheesh, Erin. You're not exactly a winning case against feminism personally.
Erstwhile Catholic:
There is a plausible theological argument, apparent made more To everyone ganging up on Erin, whose name I inadvertently mis-spelled earlier, I would like to say that Erin is a worthy opponent, sincere in what she says, internally consistent, and able to argue eloquently for her position. One would hope that anyone who sought to demolish her argument would exhibit equal skill, and find little need for sarcasm and parody.
As a one-time union shop steward, I find the pathetic argument, "that nurse could have walked away," terribly hypocritical. If your boss ordered you to commit an act the law recognized as murder, you could get your job back, get your boss fired or imprisoned, sue your employer for wrongful termination (almost every state has a narrow exception to "employment at will" for unambiguous violations of public policy, and murder definitely would be one. The law does not recognize the procedure she was ordered to participate in as murder, therefore, she has relatively little protection. And as Mr. Rochester told Jane Eyre, most things freeborn will do almost anything for a salary. He did not add, they often have no choice.
I would draw one very important line as to when and how the Roman church denies communion to anyone. IF the individual has committed an act which violates church teaching, then the church has every right to deny communion, which signifies "you are not one with us." In my Protestant understanding, it signifies no more than that -- God is not bound by the decision of the church, and God will judge as God sees fit. I frequently attend services at a WELS Lutheran church where I am not welcome to take communion, and do not seek to do so -- I am welcome to worship there, and I like many of the people there. There are other churches, Presbyterian and Methodist in particular, where I am welcome at communion. Thus, as a citizen of a pluralistic republic, where establishment of any church is constitutionally prohibited, I can recognize the freedom of the Roman church to conduct its services as it sees fit.
When a Roman bishop attempts to coerce the vote, or the performance of administrative duties, by a government official, through, e.g., withholding communion, I would cheerfully support a charge of high treason against that prelate, or at least of blackmailing a public official to coerce their performance in office. The distinction? The church may excommunicate a doctor who performs an abortion, but it may not coerce the vote of a legislator who represents their entire district, not the Roman church. In my view, a legislator may well believe, abortion is morally wrong, but reinstating criminal laws is neither constitutional in this nation, nor a wise means to reduce the number of abortions, so I will not support the legislation which the council of bishops seems to have endorsed. If the church attempts to secure desired legislation by coercing officials who happen to be church members, then the church stands in direct challenge to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, and justifies every nativist prejudice against Catholics put forward throughout the 19th century.
I do wonder sometimes why an office holder finds it so important to remain Catholic if they are in conflict with the hierarchy, albeit the hierarchy may be terribly wrong. Why not just go find a church which will accept them, at communion and otherwise? I don't mean sneak into a Roman parish without a proper transfer, go take communion at an Episcopalian church for God's sake, or a Greek Orthodox Church, or a Coptic Church, or a Wesleyan Methodist church. But, that freedom does not justify blackmail by the bishops in the performance of public duties.
Erin, I think you got my point. Which is, first of all, that words have meanings, and ideas have consequences. As an English major, you must know that. How you phrase things is quite important, because it can change the meaning that you convey. If that was not what you meant, you would probably communicate your real intent better by explaining yourself than by trying to TP your opponents with stale, misquoted cliches.
Secondly, you have defined marriage as being a man, plus the wife who belongs to him. I object to that definition. That may be how you choose to see your marriage, but it's not mine. Mr. Sig and I are equal partners, each giving according to our ability and receiving according to our need. He is not my "head" nor am I his. We're friends. You don't get to define that as not a marriage, and I found it offensive that you would try.
Had you defined marriage as "a woman and her husband," I would have found that odd as well, but at least it would have been different. ; )
Please ignore the first 11 words or so of the above post. Somehow in resetting the Captcha words from a previous post became all mixed up with this comment. I thought I got them all, but I didn't. The comment was meant to begin
"To everyone ganging up on Erin..."
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.