Last week, Catholic priests of the 11-county Madison diocese received an extra-special package in the mail from their very own Bishop Morlino. The priests found enclosed a letter and two copies of the same audio recording, one on cassette tape and the other on compact disc. The recording, according to the letter, was a homily given by Bishop Morlino, 14 minutes in length, concerning the upcoming elections. The letter further explained that the recorded homily must be played at the priests' respective services this coming weekend, Nov. 4-5. The recording's presentation to the congregation, according to the bishop's letter, was mandatory. In this taped homily, Bishop Morlino supported the rigid man-with-woman definition of marriage, denounced the death penalty and attacked stem-cell usage. In other words, he upheld the official teaching of the Catholic Church.
The bishop's letter went on to chide certain priests of his diocese who have "refused to cooperate" with Morlino's request to preach in favor of the marriage ban and "have even expressed disagreement." Bishop Morlino warned that any further disagreement with his teaching, verbal or non-verbal, would be considered "an act of disobedience," which "could have serious consequences." The bishop concluded by encouraging discussion by providing his phone number.
Bishop Morlino, regardless of his views on gay partnership in general, is sadly delusional on several counts. One count occurs during the course of Morlino's oration when he quips "people have a right to marry, but no one has a right to redefine marriage" and continues by stressing that marriage is between a man and a woman and should not be redefined lest the very fabric of society be torn asunder. I would love to argue these statements at some future date, but Morlino completely misses some important points that are much more relevant to the upcoming election.
The first part of the upcoming marriage amendment proposes — much to Morlino's liking — that only marriages between a man and a woman shall be recognized by the state of Wisconsin. Morlino, as a bishop, can justifiably support or condemn this part of the amendment in his sermons to his congregation, as marriage is typically a religious institution. Morlino errs by assuming that the failure of this ballot would lead to a redefinition of marriage, and that the primary concern of those vicious, vicious liberals is a redefinition of marriage.
The most alarming part of the amendment for many people occurs in the second half of the proposal, where it outlaws any legal status "substantially similar" to marriage for unmarried persons. The appropriateness of preaching political opinions begins to fade when the issues pertain more to legal questions than religious ones. This is especially the case of the current situation, where gay civil unions generally receive more support than gay marriage, and the emphasis of the amendment's opposition has been placed on the prohibition of civil unions. Nevertheless, Morlino is forcing the same misguided homily, not just upon his congregation, but on parishioners in 11 counties.
At this point, I feel obliged to draw a parallel to LaVonne Derksen's irrational column on this page yesterday. While I have neither time nor space to refute every fallacy in the article, Derksen seems to possess an acute paranoia toward "homosexual activists" who strive to "drive radical secularism throughout America," apparently because a gay-interest magazine published an article 22 years ago stating that science and public opinion can help counteract the effect of institutionalized religion. Shocking! There must be some kind of underground conspiracy! Derksen concludes that the secret shadowy "secular lefts'" agenda will, if executed fully, "leave little room for free exercise of faith or speech." Derksen's reactionary accusations are too tempting to answer with reactionary responses, due to the number of hysterically wild claims. Suffice it to say, these statements never give satisfactory proof that the left is trying to specifically attack religion, and never elaborate on what their specific agenda actually is.
Derksen displays the same conviction held by Bishop Morlino — that opponents of the amendment are trying to launch a direct attack upon the church and religion. Apart from the vagueness, groundlessness and sheer paranoia frothing in this belief, the accusers — Derksen, Morlino and, God forbid, any others who choose to think like them — are still lacking a firm mental grasp on the issue at hand. The upcoming amendment concerns a range of issues that go further than matrimonial definitions: namely, any and all legal states similar to marriage. Voters must look beyond their feelings for religious institutions and focus instead on the universal tolerance and compassion their religion supposedly gives them.
Jack Garigliano ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in English.
