A bishop undermines the Church’s teaching on homosexuality

A bishop undermines the Church’s teaching on homosexuality

I don’t get this. The Bishop of Worcester, Mass., tells the state Legislature that legalizing gay marriage would be wrong, but granting same-sex couples legal rights reserved for marriage aren’t. What’s the difference? In that case it’s quibbling over the name of something. And Bishop Dan Reilly comes right out and says it:

‘‘There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to, like other citizens,’’ Reilly said. ‘‘But just to put the title of marriage on it, I think that’s a wrong way to go.’‘

If that’s the case, why be opposed to gay marriage? If we call it “shacking up” instead of “marriage” is it suddenly something different?

Either homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder and homosexual acts are gravely immoral or they are not. State sanction of immorality and disorder is the reason why Catholics are opposed to gay marriage, not some kind of sullying of the word marriage.

This is just like the capitulation a few years ago by the Archdiocese of San Francisco. The city passed a law that any corporation doing business with the city had to offer same-sex partner benefits. And since Catholic Charities receives contracts from the city, the archdiocese caved and now extends spousal benefits to unmarried heterosexuals and homosexual live-in partners. This is a violation of the Church’s teaching and so is Bishop Reilly’s statement. And it’s darn imprudent because it makes people misunderstand the Church’s teachings on these matters. Already I have people waving it under my nose, saying “See the Church says homosexual partnerships are okay.”

  • ‘‘There should be a way for the state to provide the benefits they have a right to, like other citizens,’’ Reilly said. ‘’
    He’s already assuming they have a ‘right’ to certain benefits whereas in reality, they are claiming such benefits as rights because of the homsexual relationship.  It is not the same thing.

  • Yes, Brendan, people have rights, but not everyone is entitled to every right at every time. If I want my mom to have health insurance, it doesn’t mean I get to change the law to allow me to “marry” my mom.

    As Colleen says, there are plenty of legal ways already for gay people to acquire houseing, health care, and education without destroying the institution of marriage.

    Besides, the Church’s teaching on legal recognition of homosexual relationships has been made very explicit and whatever the rights you claim for them, the Pope has said that same-sex legal unions isn’t the place to get them.

  • On the topic of social justice, here is what “Considerations” had to say in Article 8: “Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice. The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.”

    Does anyone else get the feeling that the bishops either didn’t read the document or didn’t care what it said?