Catholics hear sermons on marriage

LEWISTON — Pastors at St. Philips Church in Auburn and Holy Family Church in Lewiston focused their sermons on marriage in coordination with a request by Bishop Richard Malone of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland to take a special collection in support of repealing Maine's new law allowing same-sex marriage.

Many parishioners at St. Philips and Holy Family chose not to participate, while others placed small donations of mostly between $1 and $5 into the second collection baskets. Both the Rev. Richard McLaughlin of St. Philips and the Rev. Joseph Daniels of Holy Family gave clear instructions to donors that their money would be given directly to the Stand for Marriage Maine political action committee, which is seeking to repeal the law, and that it would not be tax deductible.

But the pastors' sermons, while both addressing the issue of marriage, were decidedly different in tone and church-goers had varying reactions.

"Both sides in this debate feel deep in their heart that words matter," said McLaughlin during a 9:15 a.m. mass.

McLaughlin said all he is asking parishioners to do is "take a second look" and to "think a bit about what's happening here."

"It is clear that human beings bring offspring into the world through the intimate action of a man and a woman; this is so fundamental to societies that even the most primitive that have been studied take a special interest in this relationship," he said.

McLaughlin asked members to "make thoughtful decisions based on Christian values and what is best for humanity."

"My closest friend is in a committed relationship, they are a very loving couple; they are very dear people and they are close to my heart and I would want what is best for them," he said. "No wonder people are infuriated by anyone who refuses to give respect and honor and dignity to their loved ones. Words matter."

One parishioner, a Lewiston woman who declined to give her name, said the pastor "walked a very fine line" and did a "decent job of not offending anyone."

Another, a man who also declined to give his name, said he "gave a little money" to the second collection and plans to vote in favor of the repeal.

Gerald and Mariette Timberlake of Auburn, who have been attending St. Philips for more than 25 years, said they prefer this church because it is open-minded and friendly.

"I appreciated that he didn't dictate a specific position," Gerald said.

In Lewiston, during the 11 a.m. service at Holy Family Church, the Rev. Joseph Daniels spoke of the importance of natural law in society.

"Natural law, forming the basis of both our civil law and our church law, guides all law toward fundamental orientation and purpose to respect the common good of all people," he said. "Put quite simply, the common good of all society is vitally dependent on marriage as we know it and as it has always been known from the beginning."

Daniels told church-goers that some European nations have seen a "precipitous decline" in the population of young people and are struggling to preserve national retirement benefits for health care programs as a result.

"Now look around you, Maine is an aging state. Could we be headed in the same direction?" he asked. "Could various health care programs, necessary government and public services, the reward for a decent and deserved retirement, be jeopardized in part because the laws of society do not properly recognize the importance of marriage?"

Daniels closed his sermon by asking for parishioners to pray the debate remain dignified and truth-filled and that they "assist us in taking on the positions of leadership" and "vote yes when the question is presented in November."

One woman leaving Holy Family after the service said it was "wonderful, I'm Catholic all the way."

Joe of Lewiston, who declined to give his last name, said he didn't feel that Daniels was telling him what to do.

"I've got friends and family who are gay, but I don't support that lifestyle and I still believe marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman," he said.

A group called Catholics for Marriage Equality announced Friday afternoon they were asking Catholics who support the same-sex marriage law to place notes of opposition to the repeal effort in the second collection basket, but none were spotted at either church by a Sun Journal reporter. A petition expressing support of the law was seen circulating at St. Philips, but not at Holy Family.

The law grants civil marriage rights to same-sex couples and states no religious institutions will be compelled to perform or recognize any marriages they don't want to. Mainers will have an opportunity to vote to repeal or uphold the law on Nov. 3.

rmetzler@sunjournal.com

 

In order to make comments, you must verify your account.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your profile. A member of our staff will call you to verify this information. To join in, fill out your user profile completely and check the box "please verify my status." We'll get back to you within one business day to verify your account.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned.

Advertisement

Comments

skippy's picture
verified

The church like all other

The church like all other entities is free to do what it pleases. The address I heard at the service I attended was excellent and non-judgemental. The unfortunate thing here is that the poor choice of wording by our Legislators. The word MARRIAGE should not have been used. I have not seen the actual bill,but because of the commotion this is causing assume it did. The benefits a heterosexual couple obtains by marriage should be available to all outside of an actual marriage contract by another contract defined by law that could apply to all regardless of sexual orientation. Using the word marriage in this case is like throwing gasoline on a fire. Substitute a different term, let all those who wish to use it, use it, and make the same legal objectives apply to this contract between two persons as marriage provides. Certainly sexual orientation does not matter in the right to determine to insure one's partner in life, nor to make decisions in care giving when needed, nor other rights and benefits that married people take for granted that even those heterosexuals who chose to live together without marriage do not have. All people who chose to partner with another should be able to declare this without calling it a marriage for whatever reason and obtain the rights and responsibilities similar to marriage. Certainly we have enough lawyers available that this can be done and the citizens would not have to vote on this again.

triumph's picture

For those who do not

For those who do not recognize the name, Jeffrey Satinover is a proponent of the belief that "homosexuality is a changeable, non-innate condition, though not a matter of choice" which, of course puts all the fundies at odds with themselves. More and more it seems "homophobe" is exactly appropriate. "Bigot" is even more appropriate.

melora's picture

What is so strange about

What is so strange about this article is the mention of the collection baskets. The press actually went to a church to look in the collection basket?

The Catholic Church doesn't make this a neutral issue. It is a very serious, fundamental human issue. Marriage is for a man and woman and children should not be deprived intentionally (as would be the case in gays adopting children) of either a mother or father in a family. Two homosexual persons living together do not make a family no matter how many man-made laws change. But in today's society, people want to tell God what to do.

I will vote against same-sex marriage. The traditional family should not be destroyed.

momof4's picture

send 'em to Europe.

send 'em to Europe.

momof4's picture

send 'em to Europe.

send 'em to Europe.

momof4's picture

send 'em to Europe.

send 'em to Europe.

Rinoblast's picture

To say that upholding

To say that upholding marriage equality will bring an end to our population (which is really what the Lewiston pastor was arguing) is absolutely absurd. As if gay couples didn't exist in Europe before they passed their equality laws, and once their laws were passed everybody was like "Phew! Thank God that's over and we can all be gay now!"

NEWS FLASH: Gay people exist, and they just want the same opportunities in front of the government (Not God) that the rest of us have.

Madeleine's picture

Proudliberal, There is said

Proudliberal,
There is said to be an old Arabian proverb: "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow." This expression is especially pertinent in the tax exemption context. Churches are tax exempt under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy the free exercise of religion than to tax it. If the government is allowed to tax churches (or to condition a tax exemption on a church refraining from the free exercise of religion), the camel's nose is under the tent, and its body is sure to follow. But that's not just my opinion; it's the understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court.
http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23...
Separation
of Church & State
Contrary to popular opinion, the term “separation of
church and state” is found nowhere in the United States
Constitution. While the First Amendment clearly forbids
the creation of a national denomination, it says nothing
about the so-called “separation of church and state.”
• The term “separation of church and state” was first used by
Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801,
when he responded to their concerns about state involvement
in religion. Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting
public religious expression, but dealt with government’s
interference in the public expression of faith.
• It was U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black who first
inserted the term “separation of church and state” into American
jurisprudence in his majority opinion of Everson v. Board
of Education (1947). He wrote: “The First Amendment has
erected a wall between church and state. The wall must be
kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the
slightest breach.”
• Black’s opinion was based on a previous misreading of
Jefferson’s 1801 letter in the U.S. Supreme Court decision
Reynolds v. United States (1878). Black also confused his
history. In the opinion, he wrote that the Danbury letter was
“almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect
of the First Amendment.”
• The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion; or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.” No
mention is made of a “wall between church and state.”
• The true purpose of the First Amendment was to prohibit the
federal government from establishing a national church, like the
Church of England, or require that sectarian policy be forced
on an individual state or on the federal government. While the
amendment does recognize a “differentiation between church
and the government, it does not mean that they could not
cooperate with each other.”
http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/userdocs/ChurchState.pdf

Licia Kuenning's picture
verified

First of all, the issue is

First of all, the issue is not about "allowing" gays to marry or to do anything else. The issue is about whether we will speak English. Gays are already allowed to do all the same things that other people are allowed to do. But homosexual relationships are not called "marriages" because that's not what the word means. I would not be surprised if there are lots of homosexually-oriented people who are quietly standing by watching the absurdity of this debate and knowing that nothing of importance can depend on redefining common words. By insisting that only if we change the English language can gays be happy, those pushing this program are insulting gays.

As an example of how silly it gets, one commenter wrote, "Force gays to live lies leading to marriages of unhappiness and deceit?" Nobody is forcing gays to do anything at all. They make their own choices, as the rest of us do. If they lie, that's their choice, and I hope the writer isn't saying that all gays are liars. There are lots of people who are honest about their sexual inclinations, and also lots of people who don't go around talking about their sex lives, since it isn't other people's business. And if anyone makes an unhappy marriage, that too is their responsibility, and their partner's.

Incidentally, although I will vote Yes on question 1, I don't think anybody should give money to "Stand for Marriage Maine." That "organization" (it is really just two men with the backing of Bishop Malone) seems to exist primarily to glorify itself and to collect money. If the new law is vetoed they will claim that "We did it," but it won't be true. It will have been done by Maine citizens voting their consciences. Help to educate the public by refuting fallacies when you hear or see them.

Sources I recommend include Jeffrey Satinover, MD, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth"; The Witherspoon Institute, "Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles"; and my own pamphlet, "There is no Right to be Agreed with."

melora's picture

Stand for Marriage Maine is

Stand for Marriage Maine is not just "two men with the Bishop". Indeed, it represents many good morally upright people in the state of Maine (including many practicing Christians). The traditional family should not be destroyed (or traditional marriage) because a small percentage (and check the APA on that) of those with homosexual inclinations want to change the entire society/community. In fact, many of the pro-gay campaigns we have seen in the news around the country are not to give respect to homosexuals but rather FORCE other people to accept their behavior. This is also a matter of freedom of religion because Judiasm, Christianity and Islam all reject homosexual behavior as normal. For these three religions, it is against God.

Madeleine's picture

We have pedophiles in every

We have pedophiles in every walk of life. We pay for their lawyers and we also pay to feed them and house them...and your point was? Look at the idiot that just raped the two year old....who do you think will be supporting him? So please get off your kick about pedophile priest. What you are doing is swinging a double-edged sword. We have gay child molesters am I correct? Does that make all gay's child molesters?

triumph's picture

Not "quite simply" at all,

Not "quite simply" at all, Reverend Daniels. Are you proposing that because some European nations have seen a "precipitous decline" in the population of young people and are struggling to preserve national retirement benefits for health care programs, we shouldn't let gays marry? Are you saying we should hold gays hostage by saying: "You only get the benefits of marriage if you support 'various health care programs, necessary government and public services, the reward for a decent and deserved retirement' by having more children to pay for these government services"? Force gays to live lies leading to marriages of unhappiness and deceit? That position of guilt and shaming people may be church history, but that isn't at all simple, Reverend Daniels, that is insane.

Proudliberal's picture

And with this the Catholic

And with this the Catholic Church should lose it's tax exempt status. The Church's misplaced angst at gays being allowed to marry is laughable when it routinely ignores much more perilous things to society such as income inequality, human rights violations and unnecessary war etc.

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...