European court: Gay marriage is not a human right - Lifesite News

This is stunning (for me, anyway...in a good way) and is the last thing I would have expected to come out of the European Human Rights Court.  The first sentence from the summary paragraphs below almost had me pinching myself:

The court confirmed that the protection of the traditional institution of marriage is a valid state interest—implicitly endorsing the view that relations between persons of the same sex are not identical to marriage between a man and a woman, and may be treated differently in law.

The judgment says that European human rights law recognizes the “fundamental right of a man and woman to marry and to found a family” and “enshrines the traditional concept of marriage as being between a man and a woman.” It explains how no European consensus on same-sex marriages exists, as only 10 of the 47 countries bound by the treaty allow such designations.

Read the entire article here.

Here and Now

This past week, I had the chance to meet a new friend for lunch, who I already don't get to hang out with enough.  As we got to talking before we even had a chance to order, we discussed all matter of "guy" things--our families, business, promotions, plans for our families to move toward more sustainable living.  That discussion led me to ask a question that's been on my mind lately as we contemplate the next chapter in our lives:

How far is too far when it comes to making long-term family plans?  Where do we cross the line between setting goals for our family (location, lifestyle, etc) and grasping at the future?  What is the point where we go from setting necessary and realistic goals--both as individuals and families--to being untrusting of God and his plan for our future?

My friend so kindly reminded me that God used the very particular language, "I AM," (Exodus 3:14) to refer to Himself when Moses inquired how he should refer to God when the people start asking about his encounter.

With that title, God placed himself squarely in the present.  He did not say, "I was," I will be," "I have been, am today, and will be," or any other tense.  He simply said, "I am."  With that, he came as Emmanuel, God with us, here and now, and in every moment from the present into eternity.  Christ continued this use of the present "I am" in his last words to his disciples before ascending back into heaven:

"...and behold, I am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:20)


Even with his parting words, he remains with us, body, blood, soul, and divinity, in the Eucharist and in the body of the Church, inviting us time after time to let go trust him with all the details of our life as he commanded us to do earlier in Matthew, 6:25:

"Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on."


As a man who, like other men, is hard-wired to protect and provide for his family, I've decided to wrestle some more with this one.  So, I'd like to start this small discernment by asking you all:

Where is the "line in the sand" between looking out and planning for the temporal good of our family but also trusting God and remaining in the present?  How is a parent--especially a husband and father--called to balance the two?  Or do they need to be balanced at all?


I really, sincerely would like to know what you think, and any tips you might have for maintaining the balance.

Thanks!

+AMDG+

Bishops Warn President Obama

Last Tuesday, New York Archbishop and U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops President Timothy Dolan issued a letter to President Obama, laying out in no uncertain terms what is at stake if the Administration continues its assault against the Defense of Marriage Act.  Speaking on behalf of the USCCB, Archbishop Dolan cautioned the Administration against continuing to pursue its agenda of actions "that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage," while firmly reiterating the Church's recognition of "the immeasurable personal dignity and equal worth of all individuals, including those with same-sex attraction, and [rejection of] all hatred and unjust treatment against any person."  His to-the-point letter concluded with an analysis of the multi-fronted attacks against marriage that have taken place in the past six months, closing with the sternest warning of all:

Archbishop of New York
Timothy Dolan

"Thus, the comprehensive efforts of the federal government—using its formidable moral, economic, and coercive power—to enforce its new legal definition of “marriage” against a resistant Church would, if not reversed, precipitate a systemic national conflict between Church and State, harming both institutions, as well as our Nation as a whole."

His letter addresses marriage specifically on behalf of the bishops and the Catholic Church in America, as the Manhattan Declaration he signed nearly two years ago, along with 54 other Catholic bishops and nearly 100 Evangelical and Orthodox leaders, did for all Christian churches in America.

Archbishop Timothy Broglio, Archbishop for the Military Services, USA, penned a separate letter only a few days later, forcefully supporting Archbishop Dolan and specifically addressing the wave of judicial activism that has sought to subvert the will of the people, who time and time again have voted in favor of marriage.

“Archbishop Dolan has effectively given voice to a concern deeply felt not only by members of the Catholic Church, but also by men and women of good will who in twenty-nine states have affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Anywhere that the people have been allowed to decide, marriage has been reaffirmed as that union made clear by nature itself. Furthermore forty-one states have statutory or constitutional ‘Defense of Marriage Acts.’

“Fundamentally the current position of the Justice Department seeks to subvert the clear will of the majority, whose unquestionable sovereignty has the last word in the system of government enshrined in the Federal Constitution. It cannot be forgotten that the federal DOMA, passed only fifteen years ago, was due to the efforts of a substantial, bi-partisan majority in Congress and to then-President Clinton. As a Nation we walk down a dangerous path when appointed officials are allowed to arrogate to themselves the right to call bigotry whatever does not correspond to their agenda.

Archbishop for the
Military Services USA
Timothy Broglio

“The women and men I am privileged to serve place their lives on the line every day to defend the Country whose government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Let us pray that the millions who have died to ensure those liberties did not die in vain.” 

Having met Archbishop Broglio a couple of years ago when he was the guest speaker at a National Day of Prayer Breakfast, I can tell you that he "gets it."  He spends what seems like all of his time with the troops, traveling from duty station to duty station on an unbelievably busy schedule, listening to and address the spiritual concerns of military personnel, both of Catholics and other other faiths.

We have two leading bishops finally stepping out in vocal opposition to the agenda that would seek to snatch  the definition of marriage from the hands of the One who created it.  I hope that this second shot across the bow will help to quiet the elements of dissent within the Church, and maybe--just maybe--get the Administration's attention.  I have a sneaking suspicion that it was written to accomplish both, but at the very least should get the attention of we, the Catholics in the pew, that it was not even addressed to, because whether or not we realize it, the very future of our culture--and of the civilization founded on the bedrock of marriage--is at stake.  If you read nothing else this week, read these letters, and continue to pray for the strength, courage, and holiness of our bishops and priests.

Arcbishop Dolan's Letter: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/marriage/promotion-and-defense-of-marriage/upload/dolan-to-obama-doma-letter-sept-20-2011.pdf

Archbishop Broglio's Letter:
http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=7656203&ct=11232433

+AMDG+

Guest Post: The Myth of Church and State

I was honored two days ago when my wife asked if I would contribute to her Marriage Mondays series.  I decided to write a few comments on the separation of church and state, and how the sentiment expressed by the Founding Fathers in the wording of the First Amendment has been twisted and pulled to an anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) extreme.  Please visit her blog, Magnify the Lord With Me, for the original posting of my commentary, and check out her other material while you're there.

Lauren's "Marriage Mondays" posts have done a great job of capturing the secular arguments for maintaining the societal standard of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Thanks Lauren! As I was reading through them, I couldn’t help but notice that several folks have posted comments to the effect that we need to maintain the “wall of separation between church and state” with regard to marriage. She has invited me to do a guest post to address this issue.
MYTH: Church (religion) and state must be kept completely separate. Anyone who holds to the traditional standard as a matter of religious conviction should not seek to impose the traditional standard on the rest of a society.

BUST: The Founding Fathers were not ignorant or simple men. They were geniuses, the most highly respected and innovative doctors, farmers, and lawyers of their time. They were steeped in philosophy, history, and natural law, and drew from this enormous perspective and wealth of knowledge in their drafting of the founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution). Although they came from many different faith backgrounds, almost to a tee they acknowledged and revered the authority of the “Creator God” of the Judeo-Christian faith tradition and the fact that the entire system of Western legal and political thought rested firmly on the foundation of this faith tradition.

A few more details…

Alexis de Tocqueville, in his 1837 novel “Democracy in America,” noted that the strength and “verve” that pulsed so strong in the young country’s veins was due to its strong moral identity, based primary on the tenets of Christianity and Christian morality. He recognized that the churches played a critical role in informing American’s consciences, but also made an ominous prediction that, when the fervor faded with time, the strong and thriving society would descend into a relativistic, anti-religious (especially anti-Catholic and anti-Christian) state the likes of which had recently given rise to the Jacobin regime and the French Revolution.
While the First Amendment (wisely) forbade the establishment of any particular religion as the “official” religion of the new Republic, it also respected the right of citizens to live (not just to worship but to live) their faith, which includes the right to speak, act and vote—to carry out all aspects of living—according to their faith-informed consciences.
If we push the “Creator God” and the unchanging Natural Law that he has stamped as his sort of “fingerprint” on creation to the wayside, the only alternative is a descent into a state of being where fallen, sinful humanity attempts to make up or change the rules for itself, as popular opinion dictates. Man begins—as he has so many times in the past—to try to arbitrarily engineer the political and legal systems to codify his own happiness as an end in itself, rather than as paths to a just society as the Creator has defined it. He begins to “grasp” at happiness and a twisted sense of justice, rather than accepting the standard that has been laid down since the beginning of time. Isn’t that precisely the sin that the serpent tempted Adam and Eve to in the garden, that they did not need God and could make up the rules for themselves?
The Founding Fathers were well aware of this tendency, of its historical consequences (descent into tyranny with relativism as the societal standard). It is, in large part, why they went through such painful deliberations to carefully craft an intricate system of checks and balances.

So how does this all relate to marriage? Going a step beyond the secular arguments that Lauren has presented for preserving the traditional view of marriage, faithful Jews and Christians—anyone who reads Scripture without a personal agenda—cannot brush aside the role of God’s design for human freedom and justice in a thriving society. That includes his design for the relationship that is intended to be the foundation of society: marriage. He has laid out the standard in rather explicit terms, beginning with Genesis 2:24, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” From the very beginning, he has stressed the importance of the “one body” or “one flesh” union as the foundational relationship, while also carefully and several times condemning, under both the Old and New Covenants, what we might today describe as “alternatives” (Genesis 19:5-8, Leviticus 18:22-23 & 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, Romans 1:26-27). He was also very meticulous in providing us examples of what happens when we ignore him. Let’s just say they do not end well.

Lauren, thanks for inviting me to chime in on the debate, and thank you all for reading if you’ve made it this far. Lauren will go into some more detail next week about the Natural Law and what its implications are for we who are stewards of God’s creation, especially with regard to marriage. In the meantime, I’d greatly appreciate your thoughts and comments.

God Bless and Keep You.