The Pope – In All His Wisdom – The Jesuit Interview - Mischaracterized by Media – “If they have ears, let them hear”.

Pope Francis, the wise and humble Leader of Catholics - image AP via NYTimes

Pope Francis is clearly a breath of fresh air, if one is an evangelical and holding that the way to life and God is through scripture – however, certain media and social groups have a tendency to take the Pope’s intent out of context: The New York Times is a prime example. In an article about an article in the Jesuit Journal the New York Times led with an article titled– “Pope Says Church Is ‘Obsessed’ With Gays, Abortion and Birth Control” – going on to imply that the Pope feels that the one who is involved in a gay marriage, or supports abortion is doing just fine.

The pope’s interview did not change church doctrine or policies, but it instantly changed its tone. His words evoked gratitude and hope from many liberal Catholics who had felt left out in the cold during the papacies of Benedict and his predecessor, John Paul II, which together lasted 35 years. Some lapsed Catholics suggested on social media a return to the church, and leaders of gay rights and gay Catholic groups called on bishops to abandon their fight against gay marriage.

In the actual interview available at Thinking Faith.org: The Pope’s meaning becomes perfectly clear – on all subjects – as it is rooted in the Gospels, and he relies on Hebrews, in part to form his opinions – read the entire article here. In interpreting the meaning of the Pope’s wording on the subject one finds that he is referring to the call of Christ, and the early Church fathers (including St. Paul) to heal the sinner, and not judge them, regardless of what they eat (referring to Paul-Romans). Clearly, Jesus came to call the sinners, as they were in need of healing. Clearly God, in whose image man is made, loves each one and offers each the opportunity of redemption in several levels – Therefore, looking at this humble and brilliant Pope’s stance on the issue, it is in common teaching within the biblical context. First one heals the sinner, then the sin. In speaking of the confessional – and the confusion that is caused by pastors who are either too strict or too lax in consoling those who are ‘confessing” their sins (think of pastoral therapy with a sacrament rolled in for good measure) – should an individual confess an abortion to a priest who is too rigid in doctrine, there will be no hope offered, and if the priest is too lax, there will be no chance to speak to the saving grace of God, should one renounce the sin, and seek to live a whole life.

Therefore, first, heal the rift between God and his child, and then heal the sin.

The man is brilliant and perhaps the world has a Pope who understands the Church and the Politics behind religion, which tends to get in the way of salvation.

The writer is a Catholic by birth, an Evangelical by logic and the gift of the Spirit.

Massachusetts Senate Votes by Voice – Out-of-State Gay Marriage Law

The Massachusetts Senate voted by "voice" to repeal a 1913 law banning marriages that would not be recognized in other states – allowing gay couples from around the country (or the world) to marry in Massachusetts. Those in support of the repeal suggest that the state will benefit from an increase in tourism, while those who opposed the legislation cite the imposition of Massachusetts societal rules on other states. Governor Duvall Patrick supports the bill.

The legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts produced several negatives. The Catholic Church was no longer able to offer adoptions in the state, as the law requires that all adoption providers include gay couples. The church had sought an exemption from the law, but was forced to halt adoptions in order to “exercise religious freedom in Massachusetts”.(Boston Globe) Economically, the legislation placed a burden on companies doing business in Massachusetts, a state that relies on tourism, tech and service industry.
Additionally, gay couples attempting to obtain a divorce out-of-state found it difficult. A Rhode Island Gay couple, married in Massachusetts, were denied a divorce ABA Law Journal, in Rhode Island as that state does not recognize Gay Marriage. Those party to a gay marriage seeking divorce and living out of state, must return to Massachusetts and complete a years residency prior to obtaining a divorce. The ACLU is putting pressure on Rhode Island – and is lobbying hard for those gay couples involved in divorce and custody battle around the nation.

In Massachusetts, residents questioned the need for a Senate "voice" vote over a traditional and transparent roll-call. Fear might be a motivating factor. The Massachusetts Legislature, under the direction of Governor Duvall Patrick, struck down a petition to place a marriage question on the ballot last year despite overwhelming support for the ballot question by residents (World Net Daily A Western Massachusetts representative, Angelo Puppolo, who first supported a vote by the people and later changed his mind was assailed by a highly visible billboard comparing Puppolo to Judas.

Those state legislators, who were under pressure from constituents regarding this issue, as well as pressure from special interest groups and the Governor, needed protection from similar Billboard attacks. Is it any wonder that the vote taken yesterday was by “voice”? (No record available as to how a particular Senator voted).

Massachusetts residents have only one recourse, those in opposition to the question, should send a clear message with their vote this November and the subsequent Novembers until there has been a complete replacement of those elected officials too spineless to face the wrath of a billboard. Resident in other states, where this ruling will eventually have an effect (if only to cost taxpayers money vis a vis court cases), should pay careful attention.

On the question of Marriage: The term marriage is a religious, not civil term. The Massachusetts judiciary in concert with the legislature and the Governor has trampled on the Constitution of the United States (those who take separation of church and state literally) by attaching a civil meaning to a religious term. This produced uproar by the 80% of this nations religious (approximate percentage) (See the 2004 presidential election: states with Marriage Questions on the ballot overwhelming voted Republican and for Traditional Marriage.) However, calling for a civil union is not enough for these interest groups, as it does not carry a religious overtone, by using the term “Marriage”,
Churches may be forced to marry Gay couples or face loosing their tax free status – in neighboring states. Is it really a civil rights issue designed to give gay couples rights, or is it a Progressive Issue designed to denigrate religion to a practice of no import? Civil Unions allow the same rights under the law as Marriage – support of Civil Unions - not “Gay Marriage” would leave religion out of the civic arena and give full and equal protection to those same couples under the law. Further gay couples may receive the support of those who now stand in opposition on religious grounds.

Additional References

Theological Education Institute, East Hartford, CT

California, Same Sex Marriages Will Affect Other States (USA Today)

2004 Revisited
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Map of 2004 General Election

From the New York Times, May 16th: The ban on same-sex marriage that was imposed by a state ballot initiative in 2002 was overturned by the California Supreme Court, in a decision not unlike that made in Massachusetts. The difference is that the people in Massachusetts were not allowed by their legislature, to vote on a ban. Would a people’s vote on a ban make any difference – apparently not?

In 2004 the hot topic in several key battleground states was the placement on the ballot of initiatives to keep the term marriage limited to those couples that were male and female. In those states that placed that question on the ballot, George W. Bush won handily.

The Washington Post article notes that “A nationwide Gallup Poll taken last week shows opposition to same-sex unions has not eased, and the voters most likely to say it could affect their vote are almost all opposed to gay marriage.”
The fact that the term marriage carries religious connotations brings up constitutional questions. Is there not a separation of church and state? Would it not be better to acknowledge a “domestic partnership” as opposed to using the term marriage, when these partnerships would hold the same legal privileges?

In 2004 John Kerry first supported the actions of his states supreme court and later re-thought his position, but to no avail. Activist judges are seen by many in this country as tied to the Democratic party.

Laws are, of course, subject to debate and reform, but those that are touched by the constitution, specifically when religion is at the core of a subject, should not have been brought before or acted upon by any state supreme court, and these rulings should be brought before the Federal Supreme court and overturned.