Tweet
Archbishop of New York Timothy Dolan is apparently in a flop sweat over the new reality that a majority of Catholics support the right of same-sex couples to marry. In the wake of the marriage equality law passing in New York — with the help of the state’s Roman Catholic Governor and legislators — Dolan has issued a decree (.pdf) which includes threats of “canonical sanctions”. That he even felt the need to issue this speaks volumes about where he recognizes the hearts and minds of New York Catholics to be on marriage equality. An excerpt:
Recognizing my responsibility as a Diocesan Bishop to guide the Faithful by clearly teaching the truths of the Faith with charity and without compromise, I hereby decree the following diocesan policy regarding same-sex civil marriages. This policy is to be followed by all persons whose activities are subject to my moral authority as Archbishop of New York. It is intended to provide instruction for the activities of these persons and for the use of the property and facilities of the Church and Catholic-affiliated entities within the canonical boundaries of this Archdiocese.
Accordingly, it is the policy of the Archdiocese of New York that:
1. No member of the clergy (priest or deacon) incardinated or assisting in the Archdiocese of New York, or any person while acting as an employee of the Church, may participate in the civil solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage, which includes but is not limited to providing services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods or privilege for such event. Ecclesiastical solemnization or celebration of same-sex marriages is expressly forbidden by Canon law.
2. No Catholic facility or property, including but not limited to parishes, missions, chapels, meeting halls, Catholic educational, health, or charitable institutions or benevolent orders, or any place dedicated, consecrated, or used for Catholic worship may be used for the solemnization or consecration of same-sex marriages.
3. No items dedicated, consecrated, or used for the celebration of Catholic liturgy or sacred worship, including but not limited to sacred vessels, vestments, liturgical books or other items may be used for the solemnization or celebration of a same-sex marriage.
4. Failure to adhere to this policy may result in the imposition of canonical sanctions.
17 Comments
Priest, heal thyself. Get your own house, and your employees who protect and shelter pedophiles, in order. Tend yer own affairs, as my sainted grandma used to say to us kids when we meddled in others’ business.
Priests and bishops and cardinals who comment on the perceived morality of how other people live their lives are the worst kind of hypocrites, with destroyed children in their wake.
To: Bishop Timothy Dolan
From: All Priests in your Diocese
Re: Your Recent Decree
Your Grace:
We QUIT!
Signed,
Decent, Compassionate Priests within the Diocese of New York
Yet another Henry II moment given to me by Archbishop Dolan
“Quo vadis?”
“Eo Romam iterum crucifigi”
While undoubtedly Archbigot and the other members of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bigots are seeing that they may be talking but their coreligionists aren’t listening, I think that calling this declaration of official hostility to same-sex marriage a mark of desperation is overstating. It seems to me to be primarily a declaration intended to assure the religious bigotry exemption in the New York State marriage law.
I’d have a little more respect for these guys if they were consistent.
They said they were against the Iraq-Afghanistan wars, but I notice they didn’t trot out “canonical sanctions” then. They’re for social justice, but I notice no public shaming of any Wall Street players — at least one of them has to be Catholic, right?
Just for abortion and especially gay rights. They’re as obsessed with sex as any teenager finding his grandfather’s Playboy stash. Get a life.
What moral authority? My son, the Catholic Church gave that up centuries ago.
In summary:
Do as I order you to do, or I will make sure you burn in Hell for all eternity.
et laete te crucifigerit ipsa ecclesia
It will be interesting to see how that #1 of his plays out in practice – because it could prevent a church organist from playing the piano at her son’s same-sex civil wedding in a non-Catholic venue, or the music director from singing a solo at such a wedding.
“Cannot participate” and “but not limited to” could also be used against someone even attending a same-sex civil wedding.
I hope he meant to say that you can’t do it and claim the Church approves, but given their track record, I wouldn’t count on it.
The other stuff seems boilerplate to me. I don’t have an issue with not allowing vestments or altar vessels to be used in a ceremony they don’t approve of.
It will be interesting when some of the groups like the Knights of Columbus which have been renting their halls to the public run afoul of civil anti-discrimination laws, and how they’ll justify renting to atheists or Jewish people but not to same-sex couples.
Hey, everyone, relax, it’s okay. All Archbishop Dolan is doing is reiterating the existing rules as expressly permitted under the Marriage Equality Act.
Number 1 relates to priests or deacons. Essentially, even though a Catholic priest is technically permitted by state law to preside at non-sacramental civil wedding ceremonies, this is now expressly forbidden. Although it seems to prohibit a Catholic priest or deacon from even attending the wedding reception (celebration) of a gay relative or friend or even giving a gay couple a wedding present (goods), I doubt that the intent was to go quite that far. (Then again, it very well might have been so intended)
He is also making sure that there are not any Knights of Columbus “benevolent orders” chapters that might actually rebel and allow their facility to be used for a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple. However, unlike #1, which includes the word “celebration,” it appears that thyere is a loophole for receptions as long as the ceremony isn’t performed at the venue. That’s likely something that might be addressed in a revised threat, err, statement of policy.
All in all, with the exception of the apparent prohibition against priests and deacons attending a wedding of a gay family member or friend, or even giving them a gift, it’s really not out of the realm of expectation from an unrepentent Magisterium.
And
ifwhen this fails, what comes next? A threat to place the entire state of New York under interdict? Dear, dear, the desperation is showing, isn’t it?This frightened and desperate man sounds like a boot camp drill sergeant lashing out at infractious recruits.
Catholicistically speaking, he only reveals and confirms that Catholicism as he interprets it emerges as antithetical to Christianity.
Gandhi said it best as usual. He indicated he liked and admired Jesus, but he could not stand Christians. This Catholic clergyman, however, is no Christian, but I feel certain Gandhi could not stand him.
This clergyman needs to learn what Jesus really meant when He taught us to “Love one another as I have loved you.” This cleric gives religious bigots a bad name. Jim Martin
Except that 1. is not just about priests and deacons – it explicitly says “any person acting as an employee of the Church” – and that’s potentially fuzzy. Because if it simply means acting in an official role as a representative of the Catholic Church, that wouldn’t prevent a priest or deacon acting as the state’s agent in a civil ceremony or as a witness in one, particularly if there were no blessing, vestments, or any other indication that the person was acting in any religious capacity.
And, if this was limited to priests and deacons, there wouldn’t be a need to talk about providing goods and services, and facilities for same sex weddings, as though priests routinely ran rectories as gay bed and breakfasts or moonlighted as florists and photographers.
If all he wanted to say was “priests and deacons can’t preside over same-sex weddings as religious officiants in a Catholic ceremony” this statement wouldn’t even be necessary. So it HAS to mean something else.
And if it means something else for priests and deacons, and “any person” is also included, it opens the door for all sorts of shenanigans.
I’d want some express clarification on just what “while acting as an employee of the Church” means – does it mean “while expressly acting and speaking on behalf of the Church within the scope of their paid job description”or does it mean “while employed in any capacity by the Church” – because the difference would be huge. The first prevents priest, deacons, or administrators from expressly appearing to give church sanction to unapproved weddings, but the second puts someone at risk of excommunication for baking cookies for their neighbor’s civil wedding.
Given that these are the people denying communion to elected officials who don’t vote the Vatican party line regardless of their own personal behavior, I wouldn’t put it past them.
Here’s a timely article called My Take: Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality. The problem for Archbishop Dolan and the rest of the hierarchy is that Catholics are having these conversations and finding that the problem is Church policy, not the gay family members, co-workers or friends that they love.
I somehow missed that phrase: “any person while acting as an employee of the Church.”
Since it doesn’t say “any person employed by the Church” it likely means acting openly in their capacity as a Church employee.
Now I get the example of the organist who might play piano for a gay wedding. Here’s my take on that. This is related to the whole “creating a scandal in the Church” attitude that drives the hierarchy’s decisions in these areas.
If the program for the wedding involving the same-sex couple identifies the pianist as “George Smith, the organist and choir director for Saint Athanasius Catholic Church” – that would likely viloolate the edict.
If the program for the wedding simply states that the pianist is “George Smith” then there is no open and notorious connection being made that would imply that the pianist is playuing in some way in their official capacity.
It may be that the priest who might attend his sister’s wedding to a woman might feel constrained to leave the Roman collar at home and keep a low profile.
In either case, if the buzz got out, the “scandal” occurs, and then, even if the parties tried to be quiet about their participation, it could result in “scandal in the Church” repercussions.
I think you may be right, though even the baking cookies situation won;t be an issue unless something is made of it.
The Knights of Columbus are not employees of the church. They most definitely could have a problem with statutory non-discrimination in public accomodation requirements.