We, the Roman Catholic Bishops of Iowa, strongly disagree with the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court which strikes down Iowa’s law defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. This decision rejects the wisdom of thousands of years of human history. It implements a novel understanding of marriage, which will grievously harm families and children.
This unwarranted social engineering attacks the good that marriage offers to society, especially the good of children, and weakens the critical relationship between marriage and parenting. We will resolutely continue to protect and promote marriage as a union between a man and a woman because of its unique and historical contribution to the common good.
We uphold the right of all people to be treated with respect and live in peace. This right, like the right to enter into a permanent, monogamous marriage of one man and one woman, derives directly from the intrinsic dignity of the human person. These are rights which the state has the duty to recognize and protect. They are not something that the state creates or may redefine. The citizens of every state who have been given the opportunity have voted to preserve civil marriage as it has been recognized and defined since the beginning of recorded history.
That’s my church!
“The Anglican Church in North America says this: “God, and not man, is the creator of human life. The unjustified taking of life is sinful. Therefore, from conception to natural death all members and Clergy are called to protect and respect that sanctity of every human life.â€
That is my church! I think we are on the same page
What a marvelous statement by the RC bishops of Iowa! Clear and emphatic as it can be, and yet not shrill but carefully reasoned.
But it does leave one wondering if even the Roman Catholic Church is able to exercise proper discipline in a case like this. I presume that at least some of the members of the Iowa Supreme Court are Catholics. I wonder if any high official in the RC Church called or met with the Catholics on the state high court and chastised them personally for this unCatholic and unChristian decision. After all, it was a UNANIMOUS decision, so all the RC justices on the court fell into the trap of being politically correct instead of theologically and morally correct.
David Handy+
(my Lenten fast from blogging is finally over)
#3. New Reformation Advocate
Nancy Pelosi considers herself to be a Roman Catholic. I would love to have heard what the conversation sounded like between her and Pope Benedict XVI.
Unfortunately, the ability of the Catholic Church to influence the behaviour of individuals is limited by the faith–or lack thereof– of the individual, especially in cases where the teachings of the Church are obvious and well-known. The important thing is for the Church to remain steadfast in The Truth and try to build up as much support for its teachings on issues in the public square as possible.
The Catholic Church is also working against centuries of bigoted images in the popular mind of Americans of the pope trying to rule America. These images are still alive and well on the internet and elsewhere–mostly in secular sites and sources, not Protestant.
“The important thing is for the Church to remain steadfast in The Truth and try to build up as much support for its teachings on issues in the public square as possible.”
This is, of course, true — but only half the story. The Church ought also to exercise public discipline by warning, and if the warnings go unheeded, excommunicating those who publicly dissent from its teachings on matters like abortion, sodomitical “marriages” and the like. On the other hand, while I think that such disciplinary strictures ought to apply to Catholics who determine what the law is by making law (e.g., legislators) I have always held that such strictures should not apply to judges whose role is to determine what the law is by interpreting law. Of course, I have also thought that if a Catholic judge comes to believe, e.g., that the law requires all qualified medical personnel to assist at and perform abortions, that that judge ought to resign rather uphold such a law.
Where my thoughts have become confused in recent years is that in cases such as that under discussion here it seems that the distinction between “making law” and “interpreting law” is becoming thoroughly blurred, and that judges are to all intents and purposes legislating de banco. At one time such judges would have been impeached and removed from office for such presumption, but I fear that they now benefit from the credence that so many people, abetted by the media, give to “experts” whose “expertise” enables them to arrogate undeserved authority and respect for their bloviations, that their presumption goes largely unchallenged.
Dr. Tighe,
I agree with your important distinction between legislators who make laws and judges who interpret and apply them to particular cases. And I likewise agree that this vital distinction has unfortunately tended to disappear with the increasing abuse of judicial power by activist judges who take it upon themselves to legislate from the bench. As usual, I appreciate your astute comments.
One point I was trying to make above is that even the Roman Catholic Church finds it difficult to exercise any effective discipline upon some of its members who hold high public offices. And if it’s hard for the RCs, how much harder is it for liberal denominations like the Episcopal Church that have chosen the wrong side of the Culture War? Alas, the oldline (formerly mainline) churches are utterly captive to the spirit of the age among the sophisticated elite, religion’s “cultured despisers,” that are such an influential part of their constituency.
BTW, thanks so much for all the materials you’ve kindly and generously sent me. I’ve had trouble sending you a private email for some reason.
David Handy+