Audio By Carbonatix
Archbishop Thomas Wenski grew up in Lake Worth and went on to become the head of the Catholic Church in South Florida; his archdiocese covers Broward, Monroe and Miami-Dade counties.
As the battle heats up over gay marriage, Wenski has penned a letter outlining the modern Catholic stance on gays. He notes that the church no longer punishes two people for what they do in the sack, but maintains that homosexual acts are “gravely sinful” although homosexual thoughts are not. A person should learn to “govern his passions,” he says, in language suggesting he might have peeped a few Spanish-language telenovelas while down in the 305.
See also:
– Archbishop Wenski & The Pedophiles
In an interesting take, Wenski quotes Abraham Lincoln, wonders how many legs a cow has, and of course, fear-mongers (if you open marriage up to two gays, why not three or four or ten of them?). He posits that marriage is not a right for everyone, but rather a reward for two people who make a baby and stay together. He argues that restricting marriage to a man and a woman does not infringe on gays any more than it infringes on unmarried straight people.
Hm. Your turn, LGBTs.
Here is the letter:
If you call a tail a leg, then how many legs does a cow have? Four,
because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.” So said Abraham
Lincoln thus showing a greater grasp of the reality of things than many
in our culture today including not a few Harvard law school graduates
and possibly even a majority of the Supreme Court should they decide to
overturn DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 and thus effectively impose
“same sex marriage” on the nation.“Same sex marriage” has been advanced as a cause for equality — by
providing the benefits to homosexual couples that have been afforded
historically to married heterosexual couples. Not to give these benefits
is alleged to be discriminatory. Of course, as fair minded citizens we
do hold that no one should be denied a job or a house; no one should be
subjected to harassment or bullying because of one’s apparent sexual
orientation. We should oppose any and all unjust discrimination. But,
that the state recognizes and favors the marriage of one man and one
woman as a natural fact rooted in procreation and sexual difference is
in no way unjust to homosexual couples any more than it is unjust to
heterosexual couples who cohabitate without the legal benefits and
protections of a civil marriage. The state has long provided benefits
and concessions to encourage or reward behaviors that serve the common
good of all. For example, businesses regularly receive tax breaks if
they create more jobs in a particular area; and, returning veterans
receive benefits that those who did not serve do not. The state in
historically recognizing the traditional understanding of the
institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman does so to
encourage and support, as social policy, heterosexual marriages because
such marriages best provide the optimal conditions for the raising of
future generations of its citizens. And all honest social research as
well as anecdotal evidence shows that children are “hard-wired” to be
best raised by a mother and father who are married to each other. To
state this fact is in no way to wish to disparage those parents and
often grandparents who at great sacrifice raise children in alternative
situations. They need and deserve our support. But, for millennia,
marriage between one man and one woman has been promoting what the
social scientists call “kin altruism”; it other words, it’s about what’s
best for children. Only in the marriage of a man and a woman can “two
become one flesh” (cf. Genesis 2: 24) and thus create a conjugal society
– or family – which provides that the individuals who give life to
children should be the ones to raise them in a bonded and enduring
relationship.The push for so called same sex marriage, if it prevails, will
fundamentally change this- and in doing so will open a Pandora’s Box of
unforeseen and, to be sure, unintended consequences – as the more
permissive no-fault divorce legislation did some 40 years ago. Rather
than see the institution of marriage as expressive of the
complementarity of sexual difference between a man and a woman ordered
for the raising of children the proponents of so-called same sex
marriage would now redefine marriage for all as existing solely for the
gratification of two (and why just two?) consenting adults.advertisementadvertisementThe Catholic Church teaches that while homosexual acts are
gravely sinful also holds that having same sex attractions in itself is
not. The Church calls both homosexuals and heterosexuals to chastity,
the virtue through which a person learns to govern his passions rather
than being dominated by them.But, certainly society can – and in recent years has come to –
tolerate what consenting adults may do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
It is no longer seen as the purview of the state to punish what used
to be called fornication and sodomy. But neither should the state
involve itself in redefining marriage.As an institution marriage precedes both Church and State –
while both within their proper spheres can certainly regulate marriage,
neither has the authority to create the meaning of marriage. That
meaning is found in the reality of things, the reality of the created
order, The Supreme Court Justices would do well do remember Lincoln’s
aphorism – even if you call a tail a leg, it’ll still be a tail. Calling
the mutual sexual gratification of same sex couples “marriage” won’t
make it so either.Archbishop Thomas Wenski
advertisementArchbishop of Miami
information@theadom.org
