Folks, you thought you heard it all . . .

20-Feb-2000 -- EWTN News Brief MAINE CATHOLICS SAY DIOCESE LEFT THEM ON GAY RIGHTS BILL SWITCH PORTLAND, Maine (CWNews.com) -

"Catholics in Maine have criticized the "Diocese of Portland for changing positions and supporting a controversial homosexual rights bill before the state's Legislature, according to the Portland Press-Herald on Thursday.""

"The proposed law would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations. The Legislature's Judiciary Committee will decide next week whether to send the bill onto the House and Senate. A similar law was turned down by Maine voters in a 1995 referendum, and again in 1998."

"Although the Diocese of Portland opposed the 1995 measure, Bishop Joseph Gerry announced earlier this year that the diocese now supports the current proposal. Homosexual activist groups agreed to change the bill to exempt religious groups and church-affiliated organizations."

"Some opponents of the bill said during a public hearing earlier this week they felt betrayed by the reversal. Sandra Navia of Falmouth testified that individual Catholics like her had been ignored by the diocese, which had "capitulated" to "homosexual activists" and ignored its obligation to protect the "public morality of the entire civil society.""

"Marc Caron, co-chancellor of the diocese, told legislators at the hearing that the bill would accomplish a basic Catholic goal: affirming the dignity of every human being, and eliminating unjust discrimination. He also noted that Catholic dioceses in New Hampshire, Connecticut and Rhode Island have endorsed similar homosexual-rights laws. He added that the bill specifically guards intrusion by the state into Church doctrine. "

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), February 26, 2000

Answers

Steve,

I share your shock, but remember, the Church isn't supporting anything here, a Bishop is. An important distinction IMHO. If "the Church" said the same thing it would probably be time to move to Russia.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 26, 2000.

Steve,

How predictable you are! It seems as though your whole life revolves around trying to make the Catholic Church (and the NCC members, of course) look ridiculous. Heck, I knew that YOU had posted this "question" just by seeing the subject line.

Your muck-raking anti-Catholicism is quite boring. Perhaps you can pray for the grace to turn your thoughts, energies, and time to holy things and loving people, instead of bashing them every day.

I do not stand for or against the bill mentioned in your tirade, because I know almost nothing about it. However, I did notice these key words, which probably caused the change in the bishop's opinion: "The proposed law would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment, housing, credit, and public accommodations." As long as the phrase "sexual orientation" is made clear to refer to an "attraction" that is not being "acted out," this might be acceptable. In other words, the law should permit a Catholic individual, business, etc., to discriminate against a homosexual on the basis of his sinful actions that would be against the Catholic's faith, but should not permit him to discriminate solely on the basis of the homosexual's "orientation/attraction/potential-actions." A concrete example would be a Catholic landlord's legal refusal to rent to a practicing homosexual, based on the Catholic's freedom of religion.

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 26, 2000.

Having re-read my reply just after posting it, I realize that there is a serious problem in one thing I wrote. It is necessary for each citizen, corporation, and organization -- not just the Church -- to have a right to discriminate, in certain circumstances, against a homosexual, even when simply "attraction" is involved, without any "acting out."
For example, I am thinking of a parent's (or private school's) right not to hire a tutor (teacher) who may be "celibate" now, but has admitted to have practiced homosexual acts in the past.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 26, 2000.

Dear Steve, The Catholic church has always believed in respect for the person, no matter who they are. They have always believed in fairness to all. They gays are a fact of life. We respect the person, not the lifestyle. You can be gay and not act upon it just as you can be single and not have sex. Discrimination is wrong. If it were allowed that people were discriminated against because of who they are, it would open the door to discrimination for any number of other reasons. That bill you talked about didn't say that the Catholic church endorsed the gay lifestyle, it just said that gays shouldn't be discriminated against in basic needs. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), March 26, 2000.

About homosexuality being allowed in the Church - I pray that it never is, for that would wholly blow away the teachings that were first instituted in the Church. What has happened to our Church, anyhow? It is so far astray and so many wicked men have entered into the Church that it is an issue that has perhaps been unnoticed for a very long time. I so despise when true Christians are referred to as "haters" and "biaised", because in truth, a true Christian who cares for a person who chooses a homosexual lifestyle would be wholly against their decision, and of course not against them. A homosexual can never enter into the Church, the TRUE Body of Christ, for the plain and simple fact is that homosexuals are indulged in a sinful lifestyle they desire not to give up, and as such, they are wholly disregarding all that Jesus the Lord God Almighty has commanded us not to engage in. They can even pray to the Lord, but He probably will not answer any of their prayers, nor listen to them, for they are still stuck in a lifestyle that is opposite of what God commands in the Word that He puts even above Himself (and to those in our Church who take a statement like this out of preportion and turn out worshipping the Holy Bible, no: you do not do that). In conclusion: homosexuality cannot be allowed in the true Body of Christ, and if it is allowed in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, the Church is now called into question of all its teachings (and has been since centuries ago, due to wicked men entering into our good Church). Once again the question arises: what has happened to our Church?

Love in Christ Jesus always, Anonymous

-- Anonymous (noemail@no.email.com), April 28, 2000.

do it Bitch

-- Steve Jackson (ihatejesus@hotmail.com), October 09, 2002.

You know i may be young. Im an 18 year old just started college. But i always thought of the church as a place to accept everyone, "with arms wide open". Why do we even have to go through all of this lawful mumbo jumbo. The church should just be there for people and not be choosing the "worthy" people to stand before the eyes of god.

This priest said that, this guy made this anouncement. I dont understand how anyone could respect these man made laws. Seems like anyone can become a priest these days, even child molestors, or worse, the ones who conspired to cover it all up. There is noone in the race of man fit to decide who or what god loves. We will all see when that day of judgement comes. Until then We should all forget about all this crap and love your brother like yourself. After all isnt that what religion is when it comes down to it?

Once again, i mean it may be that i am young and i dont udnerstand all of this, its just my opinion and i thought i would offer it.

-- Just a guy (anonymous@nowhere.com), November 11, 2002.

Dear JAG,
The Portland Maine problem was about discrimination, not about ''what religion is when it comes down to it?''

You key on Catholic priests for what you think is unnecessary judgment of sinners.

Actually, the Portland, Maine question was, ''Why doesn't this diocese support a law which discriminated against sinners??? So, you see-- Catholics defend basic human rights. In that case, (year 2,000) a community wanted to limit the rights of homosexuals by keeping the right to bar them in most cases. You could tell a gay man ''We don't accept homosexuals.''

/ / / / / / \ \ \ \ \ \

In all fairness, a landlord who sees clearly that a pair of gay men will conduct themselves immorally on his property ought to have that right. Especially if they're in-your-face about it! But over all, injustice to homosexuals is sinful. Whatever is Christian; that's the way we must always address everyone. Or, address NO group. Just one individual as a person.

Matter of fact, Just a Guy: Our Lord healed a ''group'' of ten lepers; He loved them as individuals, not as LEPERS. The group had no moral fiber as a GROUP. They were healed, yet they forgot Jesus altogether. Only one leper returned to praise Our Lord and offer Him thanks. It's the single individual we must be concerned for. Not groups, or militant activists.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), November 11, 2002.