And the young man asked, "But Lord, what about health insurance?"

Lo and behold, the Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles have issued a statement, dated today but sounding much like the (equally lame) one the U.S. bishops issued right after the California Supreme Court ruling, on the subject of same-sex marriage.

Yes, I know I was griping about the sound of silence.  However, I find the statement to be far more disturbing than the silence.  Let's take a look at it.

Part A:

The Catholic Bishops of the United States have affirmed repeatedly that persons with a homosexual orientation "must be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."  Accordingly, the Bishops condemn all forms of violence, scorn, and hatred -- whether subtle or overt -- against men and women who are homosexual.

For my money, the bishops are confused here as to who is the injured party.  Does the term "breeders" imply sensitivity?  Are "bigot" and "hate-monger" terms of compassion? Is disregarding 61% of the vote in a democracy "respect?"

All people, regarless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active roll in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings.

Oh! So that's what they're doing at the Gay and Lesbian potlucks. They're explaining Church teachings.  I guess they're also working hard to establish a Courage chapter.  I didn't realize it took decades to bring a chapter to your community. We really ought to do something about that.  (Sr. Anne?)

And now we get to the good stuff:

Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.

Okay, small problem.  Were the bishops never on a debate team?  Let me play Devil's Advocate, as it were.  Just two weeks ago I was on a flight with Mr. and Mr. Joe Tourist and their adorable baby girl, on their way to Gay Day at Disney World.  (No, I am not making this up.  I would tell you about the TSA guy's reaction when they went through security, but I don't want to endanger his job.)  So, "marriage is for raising children" is not going to work as catechism. Also, you might want to do some googling as to how babies are made these days.  No women need apply.

Here's my favorite part:

The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition.

I can make the exact same statement about Nascar.

It's meaning is given, not constructed.

I would have started there, but that's just me.

Then there is stuff about marriage being devalued, backed up by no facts or reasoning.  And then they move on into health insurance.

Obviously the bishops worked long and hard on their statement, as they didn't put it up on a website until a few hours before the New World Order went into effect.  Still, if they were going to wait this long anyway, I think they should have taken one more pass at it.

I think it might be strengthened by language regarding marriage as "willed by God in the very act of creation." (JP II in Theology of the Body)  Or, this would be nice:  The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage." 

For my money, that's pretty clear and concise.  And it would provide the Catholics of Los Angeles with something they could well use: a brief brush with Roman Catholic catechism.

Of course, it doesn't address the all-important issue of health insurance.

*****

For the record:

The statement was signed by Mahony as well as Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Curry, Santa Barbara Pastoral Region; Auxiliary Bishop Gabino Zavala, San Gabriel Pastoral Region; Auxiliary Bishop Gerald Wilkerson, San Fernando Pastoral Region; Auxiliary Bishop Edward Wm. Clark, Our Lady of the Angels Pastoral Region; Auxiliary Bishop Alexander Salazar, San Pedro Pastoral Region; and Auxiliary Bishop Oscar A. Solis, Vicar for the Office of Ethnic Ministry.

Comments

[Sr. Anne]

I was going to write anyway... It sort of came to me this afternoon that there are plenty of people who are horrified at what Iggy wrote about redefining the colors "black" and "white" on the mere word of the Roman Pontiff who seem to have no problem with the redefining of something much more fundamental to the human race on the word of...a few judges.
Is this weird, or what?

[Karen]

My sister calls is "demonic inversion." I'm inclined to agree.