Archbishop Dolan and Same-Sex Marriage

Archbishop Timothy Dolan, in a recent statement pleading with New York lawmakers to reject same-sex marriage, said:

Our beliefs should not be viewed as discrimination against homosexual people. The Church affirms the basic human rights of gay men and women, and the state has rightly changed many laws to offer these men and women hospital visitation rights, bereavement leave, death benefits, insurance benefits, and the like. [Emphasis added]

Did the position of the Catholic Church change? Here is a paragraph from Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

Later on, the document says the following:

Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life, strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to employees?

Contrary to what Archbishop Dolan says, the Catholic Church opposes laws that grant rights to gay people. After all, the CDF says, "As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise." Regarding insurance benefits, note this from the Washington Post of March 2, 2010:

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

Archbishop Dolan almost sounds like he's saying, "We've granted so much, but please, let's draw the line here." However, in a very real sense, the Church does not recognize the right of gay people—as opposed to celibate, closeted "homosexual persons"—to exist.

Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.

Having a same-sex partner, being in a same-sex civil union, or getting legally married in those states that permit it are all "objectively disordered external conduct," and in the eyes of the Church, put gay people in the same category as the mentally ill or people with contagious diseases whose rights may be limited by the state. The Catholic Church consistently opposes anything that would guarantee the rights of gay people, and when nondiscrimination laws are passed, the Church either seeks to be exempt from them, finds a way around them, or closes down whichever parts of its operations are affected. I think Archbishop Dolan is well aware of this, but it is not what he said.

Comments

[Kurt]

You don't tell the whole story. The Catholic Chruch has supported laws to put homosexuals in jail. Noew the quietly try to forget this past.

[Steven Shiffrin]

Well done, David. Thank you.
Steve

[Michael Perry]

Excellent post, David. Thank you.

Michael

[Jimbino]

When same-sex marriage and civil unions were under discussion in Vermont, identified were some 1000+ privileges accorded married folks that were denied to the singles.

Here we are not talking only of "rights." Lower income-tax rates for married couples is but one example of a privilege that is not a right.

I would like Dolan and others to identify which of those 1000+ privileges he finds not essential to maintenance of the RC family, so we could move to eliminate those, at least.