Publish the reply!

Well, you see, here's the deal: It isn't a democracy. Nor should it be. Deal with it. Or don't. Knowing you, you won't.

Hallelujah, mr. Holden!

Don't hold your breath Dominic.

The bishops will only move priests from African nations and southeast Asia to replace the Western ones in response to this. It's not even about collecting more money from parishioners, it's about pointing out the splinter in someone's eye without pulling out the log in one's own.

Has anyone at The Stranger considered asking the local Ecumenical Catholic Church pastor Fr. Philip Knowles about same-sex marriage? If too shy or lazy, here is his most recent piece.

It is easy -- and I say this without meaning to be critical or uncharitable -- to be a Pharisee, to quote chapter and verse, quite independent of the lives at stake. In a less charitable vein, I can understand a noisy display of rule adherence when one's own house is rife with scandal that degrades the beauty and worth of those who are victims of the scandal. In this pressing human rights issue, the revelation of God is seldom seen or heard. God made all, and called it all beautiful. He did not call most of it beautiful and some portion of it "intrinsically disordered."

I agree with #4. Catholic priests have been carefully conditioned to be fearful of authority, and like everyone else in this economy, are worried about losing their jobs, their health benefits, and their pensions. Choosing this moment to self-immolate may sound noble, indeed Christ-like (since he's the one after all who said "take up your cross and follow me") In practice, however, we live in a real world where Catholic priests are, in the end, just regular human beings trying their best to hang on like everyone else.

Still, keep the pressure on. Who knows, maybe a real gay martyr will emerge to challenge the hierarchy. Someone should be prepared to give him another job after he gets fired, however. That's all I'm sayin'...

@2 What are you talking about?

True, rowdy, bear-pokin', important journalism. Thanks!

@7 Hasn't been to mass yet this morning and is feeling cranky.

@2 - Maybe not, but in a sense, "the people" ultimately change any social construct--religion, government, marriage, family, art--either by consensus, egress, or force. Whether, in the case of the Catholic church, it is desirable to try the first before resorting to the second (to say nothing of the third) is a decision best left to those who, unlike you or I, have some investment in the notion of being Catholic.

I don't get why you can't publish the letter. If you are merely reprinting their words, start to finish, they can't claim libel or defamation, nor can they claim to be quoted out of context.

@5 -

The bishops will only move priests from African nations and southeast Asia to replace the Western ones in response to this.

Seems we could get natural enemies in the Tea Party to join us in condemning this. Importing labor for tax-exempt non-profits? The nerve!

"The bishops do not speak for me regarding civil marriage equality for same-sex couples."

Yes they do. If you call yourself a catholic they speak for you. You don't get to pick and choose. You also believe that you are eating Jesus's flesh and blood. Not a symbolic act of remembering blah blah blah. His actual flesh and blood. You don't get to pick and choose.

@11 - because the copyright belongs to the author, not the recipient, and the author alone can decide if or how to publish.

The reply was forwarded to The Stranger by the recipient, and so it is not theirs to publish.

@13 - Maybe not as far as the church is concerned. But unless you believe that any religious doctrine is formally (and literally) "handed down" by divine, essentially anthropomorphic deity, your intellectual duty is to "pick and choose". I can't imagine I will ever see a unified body of assertions that appears both true and tenable in its entirety.

These so-called Catholics really seem to be a little unclear on the subject of Catholicism and the Protestant Revolution.

@7,
Maybe that the RC is neither a republic or a democracy, this is not to say that money and witholding it does not speak, but that in a sense the Roman Empire is alive and well in 2012 complete with a grizzled emperor wearing a funny hat sitting on a throne? So it is not very far fetched to think that the majority of priests believe in the heirarchy and hold faith that the Pope was chosen by God to lead, so they are very likely inclined to follow and obey their 'emperor'. Just a thought...

@16 - The trouble with so much of the Protestant Revolution is that, while it saved the West from the Catholic hierarchy, it replace Catholic scholarship with enslavement to the five solas. It seems to me that only apostate religion--or at least religion with a certain amount of room for apostasy--can survive scientific discoveries and subsequent, corollary intuitive posits that challenge biblical literalism.

All of which is to say that any religion (not just Christianity) would have to be small "c" catholic (that is, inclusive; reliant on multiple sources), bound neither by Rome's hierarchy's nor Protestantism's embrace of a narrow and common poetry.

I don't get this Catholic insistence that the world will suddenly stop making babies if gays are allowed to marry. Did they not get the memo that the earth's population just recently surpassed 7 Billion? I don't think that the human race is in any danger of not procreating enough.

Can I just interject that I think the slog commenters are the smartest ones on the web? This thread alone. Wow.

For a little inspiration, this is how the complete dutch Jewish community dealt with their American chief rabbi after he signed a letter calling homosexuality a disease in their name, they kicked him out (admittedly they where already longer unhappy with his orthodox fundamentalism). Now the European orthodox council threatens to suspend the whole dutch community in turn and throwing charges of fascism etc around but the dutch leadership isn't budging: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/worl…

@ 13, Catholics (American Catholics at least) pick and choose all the time. You sound like a recent convert.

you expect the priests to stand up against the catholic church on gay marriage? are you out of your mind? they didn't stand up to the church when it functioned(s) as a child rape ring, and you think they are going to stand up for gay rights? time to get real. the catholic church is an utterly lost cause. they haven't changed in 2000 years, they aren't going to change now. just call them out for what they are, hateful bigots. i was raised catholic, i should know.

I always thought that part of the deal of religion getting tax-free status what the stay the fuck out of gov't. As long as they think they can get a say in what gov't does then they should help pay for it. Tax the bastards

Why do you continue to call these people "Father?" That connotes some sort of intellectual or moral superiority. Fuck 'em.

@25

Because that's the way they're addressed. Judges are called "Honorable" regardless of whether or not they've got any honor, too. And it's not going to change just because you've decided to put a stick up your ass over it.

@24

See previous umpteen posts on the topic, where this has been asked and answered many times over.

tl;dr: it's not illegal.

If a priest is no longer content with obeying the Pope but still wants to practice essentially the same rites and uphold essentially the same beliefs, I'm sure the high-church Episcopalians would welcome him. There's absolutely no excuse for remaining a Catholic priest when you cannot respect what the Church demands of you.

fuckin' mackel-snappers.

@29

Or maybe, just maybe, the Catholic church does some stuff other than tell its members how they should feel about gay marriage. Stuff that, for some strange reason, those members seem to find almost as important as this single, monumentally important issue.

@26 - well, they ain't my father...so I'm keepin' the stick.

"Farther Ryan", Dominic?

@31 - perhaps if you were deprived of the right to marry, a scenario you've probably never even imagined, you too might find that it is a "monumentally important issue."

"If Farther Ryan at St. James Cathedral stood up for marriage equality and Most Reverend Sartian made a move..."

Please learn the difference between farther and father.

I like "Farther Ryan." It sounds Colonial.

Wow, they withheld donations for same sex marriage? Even the people who want the church kiddie diddlers held accountable didn't get that!

Aside from waging a letter writing campaign the only other tool we have to influence the abuse of Church lobbying is to file a Complaint (Referral) with the IRS. Here is the form http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f13909.pd…. Also here is an explanation about the process of reporting suspected tax exempt status, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/divulge_… Upon reading the associated literature I was dismayed to discover that under the rules for a 501 (C)(3) a limited amount of lobbying is tolerated. The test is based upon what percentage of resources, time, money, volunteers have been committed to the lobbying effort. I am incapable of determining that value which is why I am sending in my form to allow the IRS the opportunity to investigate if a violation has occurred. The knowledge that they are being investigated by the IRS may subdue the zeal that a Church may be experiencing. I don't begrudge a Church exercising general advocacy , that's called a sermon. It's when they reach out as an organization and attempt to influence legislation that I feel they've stepped over the line. If you agree I urge you to download and file the form. The more voices heard the better.

Well, of course, any Catholic may "choose" what he or she wishes to believe, but then that makes that person a Protestant at heart. The Catholic Church is not a democracy, contingent on what people "feel" is right. It is an ages-old Church, founded by Christ Himself, with the promise that she would never be overcome by Satan. Filled with sinners, yes, some with as much evil intent as Judas Iscariot. Some ignorant and too lethargic to become informed. Some arrogant and using their power to beat down their fellow men. But some (like the Apostles and Mary and St. Augustine and on and on) embrace the Church's teachings as though from Christ Himself, because they are from Him. She is His bride and the two have become one by His blood on the cross. He sees the finished product; we only see a temporary part of Her journey to join Him along the way of His passion. We see the Judas Iscariots; Jesus sees the St. Pauls. We see the weak-willed; He sees the St. Peters. We see all of the negative; He sees sinners turned into martyrs. They died obeying the Church as the very voice of Christ Himself.

From the teachings of Rome there has never been and never will be something put forth that is anti-Biblical. The Old Testament and the New Testament (which was first preached orally before anything was written down) is a married couple. The Church is the offspring of the faith God has infused into His people. They cannot be separated. People who can't even find their way without a GPS or a map (most of us) haven't the foresight to judge why God has so commanded. Pick up a Catechism, laden with Scriptural quotes and explanations; read Chapters 1 and 2 of Romans; read Church documents. Become informed and understand or be someone who rejects the teachings because they don't "feel" right. But when one does that, one rejects the very voice of Jesus Christ Himself.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right? So as Moses -- a man anointed by God to lead His people -- a man who spoke face to face with God -- so God anoints a man today to lead His Church and He speaks to Him, sending His directions from the Holy Spirit to His people.

Well, of course, any Catholic may "choose" what he or she wishes to believe...

Not really. In philosophy, "belief" is the holding of a given posit to be true. The only way one can hold a counter-intuitive posit to be true is if the evidence contradicts one's intuition; the only way to hold a counter-evidentiary posit to be true is if a) other evidence points to a contradictory scenario or b) intuition suggests that there's something wrong with the evidence. Thus beliefs can change as data and temperament change, but one cannot change belief; and while one can believe something that is not necessarily true (so far as discerning truth is even within our power), one cannot believe something that one does not perceive as true. Belief is discerned, not decided; this discernment is an ongoing, dynamic process. Our beliefs cannot be nakedly counter-factual.

I think what you mean is that any Catholic may choose what tenets of Catholicism (which are different from, though related to, the articles of faith) he or she wishes to observe or obey. The fact that we use the word "belief" to describe that is just linguistic sloth.

The Catholic Church is not a democracy, contingent on what people "feel" is right. It is an ages-old Church, founded by Christ Himself, with the promise that she would never be overcome by Satan.

Fair enough. I left Catholicism when I realized that I neither believed its assertions, and determined that, in light of that, I would have to make decisions as to when and whether to obey its tenets in light of whatever date I find most credible.

That said, if a socially liberal splinter group that held the doctrines of the church to be symbolic in nature wished to maintain observance of certain rituals while allowing, say, same-sex marriage (or contraception, or the ordination of women, or a non-celibate priesthood, and so on), I don't see why they should be stopped; the question becomes one of who keeps the "Catholic" name, since small-c "catholic" is a (lovely) word independent of its having been co-opted, millennia ago by the institution.

God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, right?

So it is said. But assumes facts not in evidence. You're welcome to believe that, of course, but on what basis ought we to hold others accountable to that belief?