 |
| Bishop Joseph Tyson, Diocese of Yakima, Washington |
A reader from the Diocese of Yakima, WA sent me an email on
Sunday with this news:
Today at Mass, a letter was
read from the bishop defending marriage, and specifically talking about the
referendum that's on the ballot here and why it should not be passed. It was
about 10 minutes long, and I don't know who authored it, but it was amazing. It
brought tears to my eyes.
When it was over there was dead
silence, and then it got a standing ovation from about half the people at Mass.
I'm sure the other half of the people didn't have any idea what this was all
about. FINALLY someone is standing up for what's right for a change.
The bishops in the state of Washington do indeed seem to be
fighting hard against the redefinition of marriage in that state. Archbishop
Sartain, as you recall, asked Seattle Archdiocese parishes to collect
signatures against the referendum, and was met with some resistance from some “progressive”
priests there (see my post here).
Back to my friend’s parish in the Diocese of Yakima…the
letter she refers to was indeed written by the bishop of that Diocese, Most
Reverend Joseph J. Tyson.
At the web page
of the Diocese of Yakima, you can access three different documents about
marriage; the faithful there are getting some good catechesis on the topic of homosexual
“marriage”!
Bishop Tyson opens his letter with a photo of his parents on
their wedding day – a nice touch I thought!
Here are a couple of excerpts from Bishop Tyson’s letter; it’s
worth reading in its entirety (use the link above):
…We must also understand
another tragic consequence. R-74 jeopardizes freedom rather than expands it. It
endangers our religious liberty and the right of conscience. Once marriage is
redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for
public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique meaning
of marriage, and to teach about the right of a child to be known, loved and
raised by his or her own mother and father in a stable home. This law will
challenge our right to educate about the unique value of children being raised
by their own mothers and fathers. No institution or individual could propose
that married mothers and fathers provide a singular benefit to children without
being accused of discrimination.
…
So why do we settle for this
kind of law? I think out of fear. There’s the plain misunderstanding of the
meaning of marriage, which I think has been a significant factor in our
cultural debate. But some of us have friends and family with same-sex
attractions. And we are aware of a painful pattern of unjust discrimination and
personal reject. We love them. We do not want to lose them. We do not want them
to feel rejected again.
Yet, because we support
marriage’s unique meaning does not mean we love any of our family any less. The
truth of the matter is that our family and friends are in a variety of places
when it comes to growth in the moral life – not only with same sex attractions
– but all kinds of relational issues involving the human heart.
Indeed, come November 6th if
all we hope for is the defeat of R-74, then our hopes are too little. When it
comes to following the words of Jesus in our Sunday Gospel, we need to think
BIG. We need to find ways to replant our Church’s moral proposal for human
happiness that flows from marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
This “re-evangelization” is
precisely what our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI called for in his launch of
the “Year of Faith” this week. This “new evangelization” is not a new teaching.
Rather it is our Church’s desire to re-introduce the Good News of Jesus Christ
to those whose faith has grown weak or who lack conviction about the Church’s
proposal of what bring human happiness in this life and the next.
He makes some very good points, I think. The other documents
are interesting and informative as well. One is in a question-and-answer
format. Here’s a sample question or two:
Q. Don’t
people with same-sex attractions need the state to redefine marriage in order
to have the legal benefits of marriage?
A. No. Registered domestic
partners in Washington State already have legal equality with married couples,
and they possess all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. Although some
proponents contend redefining marriage is required for domestic partners to access
these legal rights and benefits, it is not necessary, as all of the rights
and benefits were granted by law in 2009. Redefining marriage in state law
cannot and will not grant any federal benefits.
Q. Isn’t it unjust
discrimination to oppose marriage between two men and two women?
A. No. Recognizing
differences is not unjust discrimination. Redefining marriage as a genderless
institution, on the other hand, would be truly unjust because schools and other
institutions would be prevented from teaching that gender difference matters
and that mothers and fathers have distinct and irreplaceable roles in the lives
of their children.
The other covers some of the same material as the
question-answer document, and includes these additional points (and there’s
more – see it all at the links):
How does redefining marriage threaten
parental authority?
• In Massachusetts, where
same-sex marriage was legalized by the state’s highest court, students are
taught about gay marriage in public school classrooms and the courts have ruled
that parents have no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of
such instruction.
• Eighteen first-grade students
in San Francisco took a school-sponsored field trip to attend the wedding of
their teacher and her lesbian partner in October 2008. The school principal
described it as a “teachable moment.”
How does redefining marriage
threaten personal freedom?
• In Vermont this summer, an
innkeeper was forced to pay $30,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by two women for
refusing to host the couple’s wedding reception. The inn no longer hosts
weddings or receptions.
• In Canada, where same-sex
marriage has been legalized, Roman Catholic sportscaster Damian Goddard was
fired from his job for expressing support for traditional marriage.
• Accusations that it is
“anti-gay” have been leveled at Chick-Fil-A, because its founder offered a
personal statement supporting traditional marriage. Mayors in several major
cities denounced the company for its “discriminatory views” and have a
threatened to prevent the company from operating in their cities.
• In August a gunman entered
the offices of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. with intent to
kill staff members because the organization defends marriage as a union between
a man and a woman. The Family Research Council has been branded by one same-sex
marriage advocacy group as a “hate group” because of its support for
traditional marriage.
I think the points about the threats to parental authority
and forcing schools to teach that homosexual behavior is “normal” are critical
issues that many people don’t think about – until they are confronted with
them. To me it’s the ultimate irony: our
society is in the process of creating a “truth” that is clearly a lie, and is
making it illegal to teach the truth or to even voice an opinion about that lie!
Maybe it’s time to re-read Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.
I'd say go with the higher law. Some times the law of the land is impossible.
ReplyDelete