The Dish

From a Catholic priest urging me to hang in there:

I know…
Times are terrible…
The church says gay people are not permitted to get married, ordained, or adopt children. All prohibitions. Not one statement of moral guidance or recognition. Negation only.
I don’t know what to say or think myself.
I wish I could be more encouraging.
I take refuge in conscience (which the tradition treats with utmost respect), and in my belief that the church is larger and older and wiser than one segment, no matter how powerful and officially sanctioned its self-defined role. The Church cannot be contained or proscribed as the narrow experience of what the magisterium teaches. It is all of us. It is the communion of saints. It is the holy spirit alive in the world. And, I suppose, I am just stubborn enough not to let them reduce my church to this…

I am so grateful to all of you who have reached out these past few days. It’s been amazing. I’ve just spent four hours reading your missives. Somuch extraordinary support, compassion, intellect, encouragement. Sometimes, this blog feels like a family. I’m awed and buoyed.

Rick Santorum reveals Vatican I Catholicism by saying the following:

Why? Because — principally because of children. I mean, it’s — it is the reason for marriage. It’s not to affirm the love of two people. I mean, that’s not what marriage is about. I mean, if that were the case, then lots of different people and lots of different combinations could be, quote, “married.”
Marriage is not about affirming somebody’s love for somebody else. It’s about uniting together to be open to children, to further civilization in our society.

I hope this view of Santorum’s gets a wider hearing. Memo to all you straight married couples out there who view your marriage as fundamentally about love. Today’s Republicans are out to get you too. Santorum then says the following: “I’m not that familiar with civil union laws.” Huh? When Brit Hume presses him on whether he would support any benefits for gay couples, he demurs. This is a U.S. senator who has put himself into the forefront of the gay debate who doesn’t even know what civil unions are. You know what? I believe him. He hasn’t thought for a second about the good of homosexual citizens. And why should he? And in this he’s not alone. I still don’t know, for example, whether National Review would officially approve of any benefits for gay couples at all. I don’t know what Stanley Kurtz would support short of marriage. Or Maggie Gallagher. Or David Frum. Or president Bush. What does he favor for gay couples if not marriage? This is odd. Wouldn’t these people be far more persuasive if they offered an alternative to marriage? It would certainly make them seem far less homophobic. They could take the position that they’d be happy to have civil unions but draw the line at marriage – and they’d get a lot of support. So why don’t they? Could it be that their real agenda is not simply keeping marriage exclusively heterosexual but keeping gays as marginalized and stigmatized as possible? Let’s see if they step up to the plate and tell us what they actually propose for gay citizens, rather than what they oppose.

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “I just completed 30 years working for the Department of Defense, the last 14 years spent in ensuring our missile defense systems are properly tested.-Yet, as I look forward to retirement eligibility in 1047 days, I know that I cannot include my husband on my health insurance policies or as a benficiary for my pension, as can my straight married co-workers.- This grinds on me daily.- We spent several thousand dollars last year redoing wills, forming revocable trusts, establishing various powers of attorney, etc.-That helps, but nothing-short of full marriage will allow the health and pension benefits that I believe we deserve just as much as-my collegues who take them for granted.-Of course, my family doesn’t matter,-as our opponents say; we’re just in it for the sex.- (I think I remember what that is.)-No matter that my husband’s bedridden, Alzheimer’s afflicted mother has lived in our house for the last 2 years; we’re just in it for the sex.-(Try changing the diaper of a 120 pound, uncooperative woman; babies are nothing in comparison.)-If the Constitutional Amendment codifying discrimination into our Constitution for the first time goes forth and is approved, I will be voting with my feet and leaving this once great country for a freer country such as Canada. I cannot say the Pledge of Allegiance any longer, as the words “Liberty and Justice for All” rings so hollow in my ears. These words, along with Equality, have been long forgotten by our society and our leaders, particularly the Republicans.”

CATHOLICISM AND SLAVERY: The best summary I can get is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. From that, it’s clear that, from St Paul onwards, slavery was not condemned as in itself immoral or against the natural law for the vast majority of the existence of the Catholic Church:

From the beginning the Christian moralist did not condemn slavery as in se, or essentially, against the natural law or natural justice. The fact that slavery, tempered with many humane restrictions, was permitted under the Mosaic law would have sufficed to prevent the institution from being condemned by Christian teachers as absolutely immoral. They, following the example of St. Paul, implicitly accept slavery as not in itself incompatible with the Christian Law. The apostle counsels slaves to obey their masters, and to bear with their condition patiently. This estimate of slavery continued to prevail till it became fixed in the systematized ethical teaching of the schools; and so it remained without any conspicuous modification till towards the end of the eighteenth century. We may take as representative de Lugo’s statement of the chief argument offered in proof of the thesis that slavery, apart from all abuses, is not in itself contrary to the natural law.

Aquinas followed Aristotle in defending slavery as “natural.” Remember that Aquinas is also the prime author of the Church’s doctrines on same-sex love. It also appears that the 1866 limited defense of slavery was and is genuine. This is not to say that the Church always condoned slavery. Several popes condemned it outright, some eloquently; and the Church has much to be proud of in its record on this. But the hierarchs simply never declared slavery to be illicit under natural law. So homosexual relationships are and were morally worse than slavery for the Church. Having a gay relationship is still, under Catholic doctrine, more profoundly evil than owning a slave. That helps shed light on how deeply the hierarchy feels about this. If they really consider a gay relationship more evil than owning a slave, no wonder they are so adamant about preventing it from happening.

A reader sends this piece of information in, which, to tell you the truth, shocks me. Maybe it’s not true. But it seems to check out. Maybe other readers can help cast light on it. In 1866, America was in the middle of another, far deeper, conflagration in part over the role of a minority. The Vatican weighed in on the debate with the following observation:

“Slavery itself… is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law… The purchaser [of the slave] should carefully examine whether the slave who is put up for sale has been justly or unjustly deprived of his liberty, and that the vendor should do nothing which might endanger the life, virtue, or Catholic faith of the slave.”

Somehow, it comforts me to know that this inerrant institution, held up today as a moral arbiter, compromised on something as fundamental as human slavery. It makes dissent today easier.

“We have said that Congress may regulate not only “Commerce… among the several states,” U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a “substantial effect” on such commerce… [I]t seems to me that the power to regulate “commerce” can by no means encompass authority over mere gun possession, any more than it empowers the Federal Government to regulate marriage, littering, or cruelty to animals, throughout the 50 States. Our Constitution quite properly leaves such matters to the individual States, notwithstanding these activities’ effects on interstate commerce. Any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that even suggests that Congress could regulate such matters is in need of reexamination.” – from the Lopez case. Thomas’ reiteration of the fact that the federal government has no constitutional role in deciding civil marriage is a statement of clear conservative principles. But the theocrats and social conservatives don’t give a damn if federalism ends up with results they don’t like. That’s why they passed the Defense of Marriage Act. They suspect that’s unconstitutional. So what to do? Change the constitution!

The Senator rightly objects to the way in which the Catholic Church is directly intervening in American politics and instructing politicians what they can and cannot support on matters of public policy. I’m amazed that the Church can lobby politically and still maintain its tax-free status. It isn’t just upholding moral values here; it’s instructing a secular politician in a secular Constitution how to vote on purely dogmatic grounds. It’s one more step back from the Second Council, but then we knew that that document is now essentially a dead letter in the current Vatican. I must say that my admiration for Kerry just went up a big notch. What a country. Only one party seems intent on combating the violent theocracy threatening our freedoms from abroad. But they’re the very party appeasing theocrats at home.

Strange to see this headline in the New York Times: “Hispanics Back Big Government and Bush Too.” They write as if there is some kind of conflict here. But Bush is so obviously for big government, Hispanics are simply responding to his policies. The difference between Republicans and Democrats right now is not between big and small government. It’s between the Democrats’ Big, Solvent Government and the Republicans’ Big Insolvent Government.

An emailer sends the following information. Money quote:

At this point it will be helpful to review the text of this most recent decree of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued on 13 May 1977 and which Pope Paul VI “approved and ordered to be published”. The Congregation issued the decree in the form of two questions and two answers: 1) Whether impotence, which renders matrimony invalid, consists in the incapacity, antecedent and perpetual, whether absolute or relative, of performing conjugal copula.” Answer: “Affirmative”. “2) In view of the above affirmative, whether ejaculation of semen that has been elaborated in the testicles is necessarily required for conjugal copula.” Answer: “Negative” (3). Finally, then, it is important to review and summarize what the decree obviously means, and what it obviously does not mean. The decree means that it is the current teaching of the Church that the doubly vasectomized male is capable of a marriage act provided erection, penetration, and the ejaculation of secretions from the prostate, seminal vesicles and various other glands is possible; that the grossly normal ejaculate is sufficient to fulfil the canonical concept of “true semen” and to achieve that kind of an act which otherwise would be generative, even though in this case the ejaculate is sterile and contains nothing elaborated in the testicles. While the decree does not explicitly mention that this is likewise true of the castrate, it is clearly implied and the implication is confirmed by the earlier replies of the same Congregation referred to above, which explicitly dealt with cases of castration. Moreover clinical experience indicates the practicality of androgen hormone therapy in cases of castration.

So if you get a little seminal fluid coming out of your stiffy, even if it cannot make babies, you can have sex and marry. Great to see these deep emotional questions being answered by a resort to matters of seminal fluids. And people wonder why the Church is ignored by most Catholics on sexual ethics. By the way, guess what the earliest papal declaration on impotence in 1587 was called? “Cum frequenter.” I’m not making this up.

And now Bob Hope. Hitch dissects an unfunny comedian.

DA BEARS: My take on a new, hairier trend among gay men.

A reader points out something I didn’t know. Infertility is not a bar to Catholic marriage, but impotence is. Here’s the relevant part of Canon law:

Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.

So Viagra is a huge advance for Catholic marriage! But what I love about this whole discussion is how marriage can be reduced in Catholic terms to the possibility of an erect penis. Does this mean that if a man becomes impotent in later life, his marriage is somehow less valid? Amazing and absurd, if true.

Well over 1.6 million visits in July from over 400,000 separate people. Thanks so much. To give you an idea of the growth of the blogosphere, last July, we had 824,000 visits. And there are tentative signs of a new growth in advertising interest. Will keep you posted.

A NEW FEDERAL AMENDMENT: If you’re going to take the Vatican’s position on homosexuality as a prop for a Constitutional Amendment, shouldn’t an amendment against divorce be a a far more urgent priority in terms of defending marriage? Here’s what the Church says about John Kerry and Ronald Reagan, among countless others:

“Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in situation of public and permanent adultery… Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.”

I wonder when the theocons will propose a real FMA, one that would ban divorce?

EMAIL OF THE DAY: “To disabuse your contributor of a false assumption: “buttfuckery” is a wonderful part of my – straight – marriage, both the giving and the getting, and I happen to know it’s a part of many heterosexual relationships. On the record I do not support gay marriage but I suspect that your contributor lives only a small part of the life God gave him.”