The Lead

Maureen Dowd checks in on the old hyperventilator and doesn't care for what she sees:

Dolan insists that marriage between a man and a woman is “hard-wired” by God and nature. But the church refuses to acknowledge that homosexuality may be hard-wired by God and nature as well, and is not a lifestyle choice.
Dolan and other church leaders are worried about the exodus of young Catholics who no longer relate to the intolerances of church teaching. He dryly told The Times last year that when he sees long lines of young people on Fifth Avenue waiting to get into a house of worship, it’s at Abercrombie & Fitch, not St. Patrick’s Cathedral.

The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.

Eduardo Peñalver of Commonweal is troubled by Dolan's recent writings, but for different reasons:

Indeed, Dolan himself can hardly make up his mind on the subject of marriage’s meaning. In this two posts on the subject, he tells us that traditional definition of marriage is “timeless” and “as old as human reason and ordered good.” And, yet, in his two posts, separated only by four days, Dolan himself actually gives us THREE different definitions of marriage. In his first post, he says that marriage is “one man, one woman, united in lifelong love and fidelity, hoping for children.” His second definition, in the same post, is similar but not identical: “a loving, permanent, life-giving union to pro-create children.” In his Father’s Day post, he says that marriage is a “loving, faithful union between one man and one woman leading to a family.”
Of course, marriage has not been “lifelong” or “permanent” by law for a long time, and yet no blog posts urging NY legislators to prohibit divorce as a grave threat to the common good. Perhaps someone pointed this out after the first post, which might explain why he dropped any reference to duration in the most recent post.

As for procreation, “hoping for children” and “to pro-create children” are far from identical. Both might be read to rule out marriages among the non-fertile, though the “hoping for children” formulation is less exclusive on that front. But this leads to the question — which is it to be? Does the marriage of two 80-year-olds threaten the timeless definition of marriage or undermine the common good? If not, why not? In his most recent definition, the reference to procreation is replaced by “leading to a family.” Of course, this is somewhat circular, since legal recognition of same-sex couples as “families” would allow their unions to also “lead[] to a family.” That’s the whole point.

Comments (14)

I'm not sure how what Eduardo Peñalver has to say points out any hypocrisy from the Bishop. Parsing statements that mean essentially the same thing is not the same as +Dolan giving three different definitions.

Posted by Father Matt Tucker | June 20, 2011 8:36 PM

Fair enough. Let me fix that transition.

Posted by Jim Naughton | June 20, 2011 10:50 PM

Thanks for the fix, Jim. The irrational insistence on procreation in the face of the non-procreativity of many marriages (due to infertility) remains the greatest gap in the "traditional" position.

At the same time, I'm of a mind to say, Let them have all the exceptions they want. The arc of history is on our side, and those who marry the spirit of a distant past age will be the widowers in the days to come. Let their positions be made manifest, and let the people of God choose to whom they will go for the real Gospel.

Posted by tobias haller | June 21, 2011 8:27 AM

Archbishops have never had any problem believing they know the truth for all of us!

Posted by DnWillets | June 21, 2011 11:10 AM

Mr. Naughton, What is it about constantly attacking the Catholic Church on the Episcopalian Episcopal Cafe? I hoped you were turning a new leaf with your irenic press release concerning St. Luke's parish leaving the Episcopal Church for the Archdiocese of Washington and the soon to be established ordinariate. Do you think that referring to the Archbishop of New York as a hyperventilator and worse is good public relations or ecumenism? Please don't use the defense of this being a private blog when it started out identified as an "Episcopal Diocese of Washington" blog and still prominently displays the Episcopal Church name, on top of you being the pr contact person for the diocese.

"Let their positions be made manifest, and let the people of God choose to whom they will go for the real Gospel." True enough, Fr. Haller. Let your own light shine without trying to snuff out someone else's lamp; this obsession with the Catholic Church and the name calling just make the name callers appear petty and lacking the Gospel.

Fr. Bill Ledbetter, SSC
Los Angeles, CA

Posted by LA Episcopal priest | June 21, 2011 1:28 PM

Fr. Haller,
I meant no implication that you are the one throwing mud.

Fr. Bill Ledbetter

Posted by LA Episcopal priest | June 21, 2011 1:37 PM

Fr. Ledbetter, nor did I receive your comment in that way. I really do mean that it is best if all follow their own best promptings. I do find the RC position to be less than consistent, from a theological perspective, and Dolan's pugnacious insistence ('weak point -- pound pulpit harder') very much less than persuasive to many people, including the increasing number of disaffected Roman Catholics.

It is, from my perspective, tragic to see a great religious tradition so entangled in a rear-guard defense of a scarcely defensible position. I would that they could be free of the need to control, and simply teach the Gospel, but the mud -- if there is any -- is that of the scholastic tradition which in spite of its great light on some theological questions, is, when it comes to human nature and anthropology, sadly defective.

But it is not for me to change them or insist they change. But I will speak when they seek to impose their views upon the larger society.

Posted by tobias haller | June 21, 2011 4:05 PM

Bill, In this ecumenical winter where the Vatican has abandoned the ICEL (International Commission on English in the Liturgy) ecumenical translations of the psalms and the common English liturgy--which took forty years to develop--criticism of the Roman Catholic Church as an institution is fair game. After all the various ARCIC (Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission) reports, the institution still does not recognize Anglican orders.

As an ex-Roman Catholic who would gladly have my baptism undone if it were possible and have it redone in the Episcopal Church, in which I was received, I am troubled by the worship of the hierarchy the Roman Church promotes, as if the clergy were the sole guarantee of apostolicity. The church is the people of God and the clergy are merely servants who can be dismissed when they fail to do their job. I see no reason to be nice to Rome, especially in light of the revelations of the Vatican coddling pedophile priests. Cardinal Law of Boston got a nice promotion to Saint Mary Major in Rome when his own people turned against him over his refusal to discipline pedophiles.

As a legally married gay man in New York State, I resent the way the Archbishop wants to deny a whole class of people access to civil marriage. Same-sex couples in New York should not have to go elsewhere to get married. Murdoch and I did but that was six years ago. It is time to move on and accept separation of church and state.

Gary Paul Gilbert

Posted by Gary Paul Gilbert | June 21, 2011 6:42 PM

As a legally married gay man in New York State, I resent the way the Archbishop wants to deny a whole class of people access to civil marriage.

You can save your (digital) breath, Gary. The above is exactly why Fr Bill is GRATEFUL to Archbishop Dolan!

JC Fisher

Posted by tgflux | June 22, 2011 6:20 PM

JC Fisher,

You are mistaken.

Again, the issue: why is a blog sponsored by an Episcopal diocese making repeated attacks on the Roman Catholic Church?

Would it please folks if the archdiocesan paper in Washington started attacking the Episcopal Church and particular Episcopal bishops by name? I don't think it would please anyone except those who thrive on confrontation.

Remember that there is much more to the Church than your cause, no matter how important your cause may be. Christian unity and cooperation between the various churches are also important.

Your brother in Christ

Posted by LA Episcopal priest | June 22, 2011 8:04 PM

Bill, Episcopal Cafe has not been associated with the Diocese of Washington for 18 months. You know this, yet you keep repeating a falsehood as fact.

This post does not attack the Catholic Church. It takes issue with particular statements of one Catholic leader. Many Catholics have taken similar issue.

Cooperation between churches is important, and is to be encouraged. Silence in the face of fearmongering is reprehensible and is to be confronted.

Posted by Jim Naughton | June 22, 2011 8:19 PM

"Episcopal Café is sponsored by the Diocese of Washington, in partnership with The Episcopal Church in the Visual Arts." --Hey, its your information on your site; I assume its accurate.

Reading an article criticizing a Catholic bishop and calling him names in the NCR (National Catholic Reporter) is one thing, reading it on a site "sponsored by the Diocese of Washington" is quite another.

Good night.

Fr. Bill Ledbetter,
Los Angeles

Posted by LA Episcopal priest | June 23, 2011 2:26 AM

Bill, What do you make of The National Catholic Reporter, which regularly goes after authoritarian bishops? Ought the editors silence themselves in the name of unity?

What do you mean by "your cause?" Are you saying that equality before the law is unimportant? Archbishop Dolan deserves ridicule for many reasons. He said that New York State would become like North Korea and China if the Senate passes marriage equality. What do you make of his homophobic and slightly racist rant?

Posted by Gary Paul Gilbert | June 23, 2011 3:14 AM

Bill, can you show me where the language that you quote appears on the site? I thought I had removed all of that language quite a while ago. Just paste in the url, and I will fix it.

"The first sentence on our About page reads: Welcome to the Episcopal Café, an independent Web site featuring news, commentary, art, meditations and video. "

As for your notion that members of one Christian denomination cannot speak critically of the leaders of another Christian denomination, I have to say I think it is extremely peculiar. And I am wondering whether you police the many Catholic sites that regularly take potshot at the leaders of our church with the same vigilance that you attempt to suppress comment here at the Cafe.

Posted by Jim Naughton | June 23, 2011 8:39 AM

Add your comments

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

Reminder: At Episcopal Café, we hope to establish an ethic of transparency by requiring all contributors and commentators to make submissions under their real names. For more details see our Feedback Policy.

Name:

Email Address:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)

CATEGORIES

Organizations