Archbishop Should Keep Mouth Shut On Gay Marriage

Guest Columnist



South Florida Archbishop Thomas Wenski has once again spoken out about the need to oppose gay marriage and protect guy/gal as the only relationship recognized by the state.

His comments are here.

That’s just what we need, a lecture on relationships from a guy who, if he has followed his Church’s rules, has never married or dated.

The archbishop has never had a significant other.  He has never been in a loving or abusive relationship. He has never loved much less loved and lost. He has never sent a Valentine’s Day card to anyone except Mom.

What hubris!

What next? Helen Keller on color co-ordination.

The archbishop lectures about something he has no personal knowledge or personal interest in—marriage.

So let me give him a few of the facts.

The earliest human relations didn’t have much to do with godliness, love or marriage. It was urges and opportunity.

From Abraham’s times until only a couple of hundred years ago, love between one man and one woman in the eyes of his god had little or nothing to do with marriage.  Polygamy and purchased concubines were the rule.if you were rich.

The archbishop apparently does not even know why they call it The Marriage CONTRACT.

Well, here’s why.  It was a business deal between families.  You get the daughter with a dowry and I get a son-in-law with some money or property as payment to close the deal. We unite our families and our property.

After all, nothing says the love of Jesus like swapping your daughter, along with ten goats and a cow, for a son-in-law and a couple of hectares in the lower pasture.

In some cases, the prospective bride and groom did not meet until the wedding day.

This is still the basis of marriage in much if not most of the undeveloped world.

I am sure Wenski will be happy to learn that if a Third World relationship sours they don’t divorce–the husband’s family kills her.  But the important thing is they don’t divorce.

If this seems an unfair comparison, don’t be so sure. Every day priests reject the cries of Catholic wives who find themselves in loveless marriages where they are being brutalized. “Prayer and forgiveness and not divorce are God’s solution.

Not much of a surprise coming from a religion that has a theology that changed little over the centuries.

Assuring us that marriage is only between man and woman, Wenski points to Genesis 1:27: “Male and female, He created them.

But looking around, apparently He also created gays, lesbians, transgenders and, if one were to believe Mathew 19:12, eunuchs.  And that all are equal in the eyes of Him.

Wenski is also sure that gay marriage will lead to the devaluation. if the not the end, of marriage for straights.

All across America there are straight couples absconding from the alter when they found out that some states are allowing homos to tie the knot.

Personally, I have not met any of these couples. Apparently Wenski runs into them all the time.

16 Responses to “Archbishop Should Keep Mouth Shut On Gay Marriage”

  1. Mr. Courthouse says:

    You criticize “a religion that has a theology that changed little over the centuries.”

    That is what makes it appealing. The traditions passed down from year to year give faith to millions.

    As a lawyer, you must follow past court decisions and precedent. History and tradition are part of the court system.

    Yet you belittle tradition when it comes to religion.

    You wouldn’t know about faith and belief in some higher power, Fields. You only believe in the fad of the moment cooked up by the latest scientist.

    Marriage between a man and a woman is necessary for procreation and survival of the species. Two men or two women can not have children, although they can adopt them with love. This truism is at the heart of Catholic beliefs.

  2. pineystride says:

    Dear Mr. Courthouse,
    So should it be illegal for people who don’t plan on having children to marry? While in ancient society, procreation may have been the basis for marriage, it certainly is not today. Hopefully, humanity has evolved in the last few thousand years or so.

  3. Against Mindless Reproduction says:

    Why do we, as a society, continue to revere and reward mindless procreation, when the population of the world is fast out-stripping the resources to support it and so many children are already leading wretched lives of abuse and deprivation? Clearly, the main concern of organized religion and society in general is the production of children, not ensuring their subsequent health and well-being. If not, there would not be such wide-spread abuse, neglect, and sexual mistreatment of children right here in America. That’s just wrong on so many levels. Our values are in the wrong place. There is nothing sacred about cranking out babies that you can’t feed, educate, and rear to be responsible, literate adults. There is no longer a need to go forth and mindlessly reproduce to fill up the world. Societies should reward people who choose not to impose additional human burden upon the them. There should be a federal tax credit for people who have no children! There should be an additional tax on people who have more than two children. Heck, I’d even support technology to render people childless until they could prove the ability and willingness to be truly responsible parents. Not that I have any hope that any rational measures will ever be taken. After all, we’re the society that won’t even spay and neuter pets, preferring to kill millions of unwanted animals each year and tolerate countless others living in anguish. Humans are the two-legged equivalent of fire ants. The sooner we screw up things to the extent that we make ourselves extinct, the better off the world will be.

  4. Buffet Catholic says:

    If the church wants to regulate marriage between a man and a woman, they should be able to do so. According to the bible homosexuality is a sin. HOWEVER…Gays should be able to marry under the laws of our country. Just not in a Church that opposes it. Separation of Church and state seems to be forgotten all too often in our country.
    In other words, if the church doesn’t want them to get married then they shouldn’t marry them, but they should NOT be prohibited from marrying at the courthouse steps. Or whatever truly loving church out there that will accept them.

  5. Not Happening says:

    Same sex marriage will never be legal in Florida unless it is ordered by the U. S. Supreme Court or Congress.
    Florida is a very conservative state.
    The GLTB lobby and Fields should get out of Fort Lauderdale and travel around Florida.

  6. dk says:

    all menopausal women should not be allowed to marry… lol

  7. ExCompassionate Conservative says:

    God has a real fine sense of humour. Every time a Church leader decides that gays are an issue, God’s will is that another lawsuit for child rape and abuse be on all TV stations and newspapers.

    I support a lot of what the Church does, but weren’t priests allowed to be married a 1000 years ago?

    Suit: U.S. Catholic leaders failed to protect kids
    Updated 2/15/2011 12:25:01 PM |
    78 | 4SharePHILADELPHIA (AP) — A civil lawsuit filed Monday against the Archdiocese of Philadelphia by a man who said two priests had sexually abused him as a child may signal a new era in church-abuse litigation in Pennsylvania.

    By Matt Rourke, AP
    Barbara Blaine President of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, displays childhood photographs of adults who say they were sexually abused, during a news conference in Philadelphia, Monday, Feb. 14, 2011.
    EnlargeCloseBy Matt Rourke, AP
    Barbara Blaine President of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, displays childhood photographs of adults who say they were sexually abused, during a news conference in Philadelphia, Monday, Feb. 14, 2011.
    Ads by GoogleHertz Rent to Buy Cars

    The Roman Catholic archdiocese, long shielded by strict state time limits by the state for filing personal-injury claims, has been spared the multimillion-dollar settlements that have crippled or even bankrupted other U.S. dioceses.

    But the 28-year-old “John Doe” plaintiff who sued the archdiocese, its last two cardinals, its victim advocates and others had until age 30 to file the complaint under a 2002 law designed to give child sex-abuse victims more time to come forward.

    “It’s only now that he’s been stable enough to weather a lawsuit,” said the man’s lawyer, Dan Monahan of Exton, who has been working with the client for a year.

    A scathing Philadelphia grand jury report last week that charged three priests, a former priest and a teacher with abusing children or helping cover it up emboldened the victim, but it is not directly related to the lawsuit.

    The priests charged with rape by the grand jury are not the same ones named as perpetrators in the man’s lawsuit. However, both the grand jury report and the civil suit accuse Monsignor William Lynn, the secretary for clergy for the archdiocese from 1992 to 2004, with failing to protect children from known or suspected molesters.

    “I think we have a window of opportunity here … that the other suits have not had,” Monahan said, referring to dozens of priest-abuse lawsuits tossed out of Pennsylvania courts previously, when such victims had to file suit by age 20.

    The Philadelphia plaintiff, whose lawyer says has suffered severe psychiatric breakdowns and at least one related hospitalization, accuses two priests of molesting him during his Catholic school education.

    The first abuse occurred in the early 1990s, when seminarian Martin Satchell molested the second-grader at St. Aloysius in suburban Bryn Mawr, sometimes in the bathroom, the lawsuit said. The archdiocese had or should have had concerns by then about Satchell, who became a priest in May 1993, was sent for sex-offender therapy by year’s end and left the priesthood by 2004, the suit said.

    The boy asked a priest at his school for help two years later and was rebuffed, the suit said.

    As a distressed high school freshman at Malvern Prep, he sought counseling from the Rev. Richard Cochrane, only to have Cochrane abuse him as well, the lawsuit said.

    Both Satchell and Cochrane are among the 63 priests named as suspected pedophiles in a 2005 grand jury report, which excoriated church leaders in Philadelphia but concluded the allegations were too old to pursue under Pennsylvania criminal law.

    The Philadelphia region is predominantly Catholic. Cardinal Justin Rigali, a named defendant in the civil suit, leads a five-county archdiocese with 1.5 million members.

    Former city District Attorney Lynn Abraham, who issued the 2005 grand jury report, was among those who later lobbied lawmakers to amend the statute of limitations for child sex-abuse victims.

    Her successor, Seth Williams, issued last week’s charges — including two felony endangerment charges against Lynn, the first church official in the U.S. ever charged with a crime for allegedly keeping problem priests in jobs around children.

    The 60-year-old Lynn, now free on bail, will fight the charges on grounds he never supervised children and cannot therefore be charged with endangering them, defense lawyer Tom Bergstrom has said.

    The archdiocese had no immediate response to the lawsuit, a spokesman said.

    U.S. dioceses have been paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in claims since the clerical sex abuse crisis erupted in 2002. Abuse-related costs for the church since 1950 have surpassed $2 billion. Yet the Philadelphia archdiocese — led from 1988 to 2003 by Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua, trained in both church and secular law — has paid out just $200,000, Hamilton said. The archdiocesan spokesman could not immediately confirm or comment on the figure.

    “The Philadelphia archdiocese has deployed and employed the hardball legal tactics of hiding behind the statute of limitations,” said lawyer Jeff Anderson, who has sued dioceses around the country and is involved in the lawsuit filed Monday. “They have effectively been able to avoid any financial or public accountability — until now

  8. pineystride says:

    @ dk: there ya go…

  9. Death Frog 3 says:

    Sam, You are wrong for the the right reasons. All of the reasons you espouse that gay marriage should be allowed are OK. That said, the Church or any group or individual has a right to freely express their opinion. Wenski has every right to speak his opinion. As an employee of the Catholic Church he has an ethical responsibility further his employers beliefs.

    The good news is that you don’t have to listen to Wenski or sit through one of his services.

    I do agree that God made GBLT’s just as He made heterosexuals. It is man that wrote and interprets the teachings in the Bible. I would just say this, based on what I know of the Bible it seems to me that Jesus would more likely be with drunken hobos than sharing a meal with Wenski.

  10. Wet Willie says:

    If Fields doesn’t like what Wenski says, don’t listen. Unless you are Catholic, who cares what he has to say? The only person concerned with Wenski are Catholics or bigots who are obsessed with Catholics.
    I put Fields in that later catagory. A bigot is one intolerant of people different from them. Fields is bigoted against Catholics. He feels compelled to attack them in print over and over. Fields is a bigot.

  11. the Real Truth says:

    talk about hubris! Fields assumes to know whether Wenski has ever been in a loving or abusive relationship. He knows this how? Does he have a copy of Wenski’s mailing list to know to whom he sends Valentine cards (if he sends them at all. If he wants to shoot down his ideas, then stick to the ideas.
    Wenski is married to the church.

  12. City Activist Robert Walsh says:

    Hold on a minute. He is the Arch-bishop.Do I think he feels as though homosexulaity is against the Church-yes. However there is seperation between church and State. I feel that domestic partnerships should be the rule of the land. i think same-sex couples should be given the same rights as married couples. If you get the tax credit so should they. I do not feel anyone is better than any one else. Live and let live. As far as the Arch-bishop he has to maintain the sanicity and security of the church. He has to lead by example. By his standings with the Church. However his personel feelings would probably sway more supportive to the Gay Agenda in regards to legal partnerships. However there is no place for gay couples in the Church. They need you to pro-create in order for the church to keep going-naturally.

  13. augusta says:

    Eegads! A post by City Activist Robert Walsh that doesn’t read like a page out of Finnegan’s Wake!

  14. Rupert says:

    Hey Wet Willie– if you don’t like what Sam says, don’t listen.

  15. Hollywood Activist says:

    Good piece. Thanks!

  16. victure mature says:

    i love this blog..!