A bishop undermines the Church's teaching

By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. (articles ) | Oct 23, 2003

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."

Sound Off! CatholicCulture.org supporters weigh in.

All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!

Show 12 Comments? (Hidden)Hide Comments
  • Posted by: - Oct. 25, 2003 1:34 PM ET USA

    Of course, a significant number of bishosp and priests are "intrinsically disordered." That's one of the major reasons the Church is in the mess it is in today. If we haven't figured this one out by now, we haven't been paying attention. The holy of holies has been invaded by the pagans and set up the genital gods of vagina, penis and rectum.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 25, 2003 3:05 AM ET USA

    If homosexuality is an intrinsic disorder, I suspect that a fair number of bishops (even in Rome) and a high percentage of priests are intrinsically disordered......

  • Posted by: - Oct. 25, 2003 12:29 AM ET USA

    WF, Understood. Apologies for taking you literally. Thought you went rad trad on me there for a moment. Peace.

  • Posted by: Sterling - Oct. 24, 2003 9:58 PM ET USA

    Someone should hold Bishop Reilly's feet to the fire a little bit on this, and ask: "Bishop, did you really mean to say 'the benefits they have a right to'?

  • Posted by: - Oct. 24, 2003 5:50 PM ET USA

    "Child of Satan" is not a literal phrase. It is a phrase of condemnation used by the early Church fathers meaning one who has given himself over to Satan, much as the phrase "the children of this world." It is meant to set apart the heretic, the apostate etc. from the children of God.

  • Posted by: shrink - Oct. 24, 2003 4:08 PM ET USA

    Bishop Reilly's reasoning would lead those interested in the following his major premise, and the rules of formal logic, to the conclusion that it is a matter of distributive justice, and therefore a Christian duty, that the prostitute's clientele pay at the market rate for turning the trick. After all, if I'm going to sin, I should be fair about it!

  • Posted by: - Oct. 24, 2003 2:13 PM ET USA

    Correction: We are all fallen sons and daughters of Adam and Eve. Our redemption is through Christ and his co-mediatrix (I know, I know...) Mary. Satan is incapable of begatting children, because he cannot create, which is the purview of God the Father, through our own children. This drives Satan nuts. Hence, Screwtapes' interest in corrupting marriage.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 24, 2003 10:43 AM ET USA

    Pseudo: The only sin remaining - It's a sin to say sin

  • Posted by: - Oct. 24, 2003 9:59 AM ET USA

    When's the last time that the good Bishop has ever uttered a public statement on any matter, anywhere, at any time, containing the word "sin"?

  • Posted by: - Oct. 24, 2003 9:58 AM ET USA

    It is a distinction without a difference.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 23, 2003 10:52 PM ET USA

    The Church, like Western society, has become accustomed to having too much idle time and too little to worry about. So, we dabble in the occult, in perverse sexuality, in strange, undemocratic politics. Maybe a plague, famine, asteroid crash, or global cooling might give us some real issues. Till then , we get lazy prelates and homelitics straight out of Ann and Abby.

  • Posted by: - Oct. 23, 2003 10:40 PM ET USA

    By this time we can all recognize that a number of Satan's children have been consecrated bishops. And they do the bidding of their master. Back when the Boston scandal first blew up and it looked like the resignations would pour forth, I said don't count on it. I based my opinion on the fact that the heretics and crypto-apostates had gotten fat and comfortable and would hang on with all they had. Now I realize some of them are lean, mean and ready to wound the Body of Christ from deep within.