Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, current faculty member and former president of the Chicago Theological Seminary ,(don’t laugh yet), doesn’t think much of Catholic bishops expressing opposition to gay marriage, and she said so recently at some length in the “On Faith” (trust me that is a misnomer) blog at the Washington post. Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a Protestant who takes up the cudgels in defense of the Church so often that I have named him Defender of the Faith, gives her a fisking to remember:
Nobody, and I mean nobody, does pompous, arrogant self-righteousness better than liberal Protestants. Via David “He Reads ‘On Faith’ So You Don’t Have To” Fischler comes this drivel from the Chicago Theological Seminary’s Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite criticizing a Catholic bishop for being…well…a Catholic bishop:
How can we expect other nations around the world to create and sustain pluralistic democracies when prominent religious leaders in the United Sates, such as Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of New York, fail to grasp the fundamentals of this concept?
Because it’s not the job of “prominent religious leaders” to help “create and sustain pluralistic democracies?”
Elected officials represent the many different people who elected them, not their particular religious organizations.
Really? I thought all American political parties were public extensions of Christian churches. Sumbitch.
The private religious doctrines of these legislators’ faith communities cannot dictate their political positions.
Sue, of course, wouldn’t have written anything at all if New York’s Catholic bishops had gone all squishy and Episcopalian, if you’ll pardon the redundancy, and come out as a body in support of this bill. “Spiritual leadership” is when you agree with me. “Political grandstanding” is when you don’t.
That would be to effectively “establish” their church’s view as the law of the land, something the Constitution forbids.
Or in DiMarzio’s case, they would be telling Roman Catholics what Roman Catholic doctrine is. Twit.
But Bishop DiMarzio’s position goes even further over the line that should separate church and state when he advocates shunning all state officials for this vote on marriage equality. “I have asked my collaborators not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future.”
Sue, the term you’re looking for here is “moral courage.” DiMarzio seems to be saying that legislators, Roman Catholic or otherwise, can violate Roman Catholic doctrine all they care to but if they do, one of the prices they should be prepared to pay is that they don’t get free spiritual cover anymore. So who’s really crossing the church-state line here, hot shot?
One issue, then, will dictate that these churches should shun all elected officials, apparently on any issue and into the foreseeable future.
I wish the Catholics had done it with abortion back in the day but better late than never.
That’s not pluralism, that’s exclusivism. In effect, according to this bishop, “any state official” has to play by the rules of the Catholic Church. That’s not just crossing the line that should separate church and state, it’s drawing a line in the sand that elected officials are not supposed to cross.
Sue? Is a Brooklyn Baptist obligated to obey the Roman Catholic Bishop of Brooklyn? What about a Floral Park Presbyterian? Or a Rockaway Beach Muslim? Or a Montauk Jew? Or a Binghamton whatever Matt Kennedy calls himself these days?
Or a New Paltz Unitarian? Or a Nyack Episcopalian? Or an Oyster Bay member of the Assemblies of God? Or a Plattsburgh Lutheran? Or a Poughkeepsie Methodist? Or a Schaghticoke Ethical Culturist? Or a Schenectady atheist?
Do you see me working, Sue? Dear LORD, it should be illegal to be that stupid.
Drawing a “line in the sand” preventing marriage equality for LGBT Americans is not where the American people are going. In fact they are going the other way, favoring reducing barriers to marriage equality.
Last I checked, God doesn’t have a Congress. Just sayin’.
Go here to read the brilliant rest.
Oh, and if you support the Paul Ryan budget you aren’t a Christian according to this nutcase:
She has been writing these types of diatribes for years in the Chicago Tribune. She is always ready to write out of Christianity those who do not share her far left views. Once again, this is merely another example of Liberalism as a substitute religion.
She has a history of lambasting the Catholic Church. I give her some leeway however. She is a minister in the United Church of Christ and it is tough being a rep of a dying organization:
“At the time of its formation, the UCC had over 2 million members in nearly 7,000 churches. The denomination has suffered a 44 percent loss in membership since the mid-1960s. By 1980, membership was at about 1.7 million and by the turn of the century had dropped to 1.3 million. In 2006, the UCC had roughly 1.2 million members in 5,452 churches. According to its 2008 annual report, the United Church of Christ has about 1.1 million members in about 5,300 local congregations.”