On Upholding Traditional Marriage

By Eileen Love

I got a call last night from a friend in another state. She was upset to learn that her bishop had donated a sizeable amount to help the state of Maine defeat “gay marriage.” “Why is he giving money to some effort across the country? We have needs right here!” “True,” I said, “but what happens in Maine impacts all of society. The collective effort to save marriage, look after the welfare of children, and acknowledge the family as the bedrock unit of society is worth supporting!” As we were talking, I wondered why she wasn’t equally upset by the State of Maine’s audacious action to redefine the institution of marriage. Many people were, among them Diocese of Portland Bishop Richard Malone who realizes full well what this portends for the culture. He and others inside the Church and beyond realize that it damages society and imperils the welfare of children when we choose to distort the sacred institution that is natural to human beings and was ordained by God.

To fill you in:

On November 3rd, voters in Maine repealed a law that permitted homosexuals to wed. A measure went on the ballot a few months after a law permitting gay marriage was passed by the state legislature and signed by Maine governor John Baldacci. In the wake of this, a concerted effort was mounted by a coalition of religious and secular groups who opposed the effort to undermine traditional marriage. Bishop Malone was in the forefront and invited the participation of his brother bishops. My friend’s bishop was one of many who offered spiritual and financial support.

After the victory in Maine, Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz, speaking for the USCCB, issued a statement which said in part:

“The Church stands for the basic rights of all people, including homosexual persons…Protecting marriage between a man and a woman has nothing to do with denying basic rights to anyone, though it is often framed in such terms…Especially in our society where we see so many marriages fail, we should work to strengthen marriage rather than redefine it.”

And:

“Marriage must be protected and promoted today for what it is and what it is
meant to be: the lifelong, exclusive union between husband and wife. There are many ways to uphold the basic human rights of all people, but sacrificing marriage can never be one of them."

This is the part of the debate that does not always get heard. I suspect that Catholics get their news the way most people do – from TV and various media outlets which reflect the popular thinking of a select, vocal few. But whenever human beings are discussing what it means to be human, the voice of the Church should be heard. When it is, as in an ENDOW group, I have noticed that women are greatly surprised and even delighted to learn of the vast treasure of truth contained in Church teaching. An amazed look, accompanied by the statements: “Why didn’t I ever hear this? How come I don’t know this?” is typical.

The people in Maine have spoken. In their state at least, traditional marriage is safe for the moment. But the debate will continue. Catholics who want to have a say should be equipped with cogent arguments backed by solid teaching. I recommend reading the pastoral letter just released this month by the USCCB, called “Marriage: Love and Life in the Divine Plan.” It provides a much-needed catechesis on a topic that touches us all very deeply. Be prepared to be surprised and delighted.

Click to the link

Virtue--Eileen Love

By Eileen Love

I saw a TV show one day recently – a talk show – and some “experts” were coaching a clueless mother on how best to help her ninth grade daughter. You see, the daughter and her boyfriend were very close and getting closer and both sets of parents were watching the friendship progress. The boy’s mother – a guest on the show - was approving of the two of them taking their relationship “to the next level,” as long as they practiced “safe sex.” The girl’s mother – also a guest - was by turns, angry and incredulous that all her talks with her daughter had come to nothing. The girl was defiant and obstinate – what did her mother know about love anyway? The boyfriend had an air of entitlement about him – this is what I want, who has the right to tell me otherwise?
Enter the expert. She counsels the two kids to have some very frank talks. They nod their agreement. Yes, they think everything should be discussed thoroughly. Facing the girl, the expert inquires, “How long do you see yourselves together as a couple?” The girl demurs, looking at her boyfriend for some guidance. He answers firmly, “This is a long term relationship...” The girl smiles adoringly. He continues his thought…“…at least six months.”
You could almost hear the girl’s heart shatter.
At the Q and A session, lots of folks weighed in, but the woman who made the audience cheer was the one who got up and said, “What about some competent adults telling them NO?! Educating kids is about more than risk management, for heaven’s sake. What about teaching your children virtue?”
Ah, yes, virtue. According to ENDOW’s soon-to-be-released book, Aquinas for Beginners Part II – The Virtues, “virtue” is the English translation of the Latin word virtus, which can be translated as “excellence,” or “state of thriving.” For Aristotle and for Aquinas, for a human being to have virtue means to be excellent, to excel as a human being. To have virtue is to be more fully human than one would be without virtue.
Seems to me the biggest favor a loving mother could do for her child is to help that child be her most fully human self. That means offering her a standard of excellence to aspire to that is higher, better, and truer than what is frequently served up by our confused culture.
The TV show ended on a hopeful note, as the girl said she was persuaded to rethink her decision. Apparently, the boyfriend’s “six months” remark cinched it. She thought love was forever.

Bishop Conley weighs in on the Healthcare Debate

A Healthcare Problem Washington May have Missed--First Published at Firstthings.com
By Bishop James Conley

With more than 620 Catholic hospitals serving the public around the United States, hundreds of Catholic medical clinics and shelters, and even a few Catholic-affiliated medical schools, Catholics have a keen interest in healthcare reform. That interest isn’t new. It’s rooted in experience, including the experience of trying to help people with little or no health insurance at all. For decades, the U.S. bishops have pushed for an overhaul of our nation’s healthcare industry and the way it delivers its services. Why? Because the Church sees access to basic health care as a right and a social responsibility, not a privilege.

But Catholic support for the general principle of reform does not bind anyone to endorse a specific piece of legislation. God gave us brains for a reason, to think; and we need to use them, because the practical and moral problems we face on the way to good healthcare reform are as formidable as the goal is admirable. This is why the U.S. bishops’ conference has tried so diligently for the past three months to work with Congress and the White House in seeking sound compromise legislation. As of November 5, all those efforts have failed.

The bishops have a few simple but important priorities.

First, everyone should have access to basic health care, including immigrants. The Church would hope to see that access broadened as widely as possible. But at a minimum, it should include those immigrants who live and work in the United States legally. Second, reform should respect the dignity of every person, from conception to natural death. This means that the elderly and persons with disabilities must be treated with special care and sensitivity. It also means that abortion and abortion funding should be excluded from any reform plan, no matter how adroitly the abortion funding is masked. Whatever one thinks about its legality, abortion has nothing to do with advancing human “health,” and a large number of Americans regard it as a gravely wrong act of violence, not only against unborn children but also against women.

Read the rest of the article at First Things here>>