Today’s lesson in looking beyond your initial, perhaps, visceral reaction to a news story without seeing that a careful reading of an event or a statement might show that within it is the very thing that inadvertently supports an idea to which the principle players have been opposed, but closely examined shows many arguments are convenient and situational, comes courtesy of the Catholic Diocese of Worcester, Massachusetts, where the attempt to justify the support of a political opinion shows, if examined, to be a false, arbitrary, and insincere ruse.

The obvious, outward story is that after over a year of the Nativity School of Worcester, a Catholic school, flying a Black Lives Matter flag and a Pride flag according to flag etiquette below the American flag, the bishop told the school to remove them or face being removed from the roster of Catholic schools and lose the right to call itself one.

“Symbols can mean different things to different people. While the Catholic Church joins with our nation in teaching that all lives are equal before God and the law and that all lives demand our respect regardless of race, gender or ethnicity, the flag with the emblem Black Lives Matter has at times been coopted by some factions which also instill broad-brush distrust of police and those entrusted with enforcing our laws. We do not teach that in our schools. And, while we teach that everyone is created in the image and likeness of God, Gay Pride flags are often used to stand in contrast to consistent Catholic teaching that sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman. Is the school committing itself to ideologies which are contrary to Catholic teaching? If so, is it still a Catholic school? As the Bishop of this diocese, I must teach that it is imperative that a Catholic School use imagery and symbols which are reflective of that school’s values and principles so as to be clear with young people who are being spiritually and morally formed for the future. While our role in a school is not to convert those who are not Catholic, nor is it our role to deny our Catholic identity.”

Read the quote again, carefully, and look pass the main story.

According to the school’s president, Tom McKenney,

“Nativity School of Worcester is an accredited, independent, Jesuit middle school that provides a quality, tuition-free education to a highly diverse group of underserved boys of many faiths, races and cultures. The school is supported solely through the generosity of individuals, foundations and corporations. We proudly operate in the Diocese of Worcester but are not a Diocesan school as we are sponsored by the USA East Province of Jesuits. Drawing upon four pillars – strength, scholarship, character, and service – a Nativity education inspires self-discovery, responsibility, spiritual growth, and a lifelong dedication to learning. The school employs well-tested educational practices in a highly supportive and safe environment that sets the stage for success in high school, college and life. The Black Lives Matter and Pride flags fly below the American flag at our school to remind our young men, their families and Nativity Worcester staff that all are welcome here and that they are valued and safe in this place. It says to them that they, in fact, do matter and deserve to be respected as our Christian values teach us. That is the purpose of flying these flags.”

Seems a little more substantive in the reasons for flying the flag as opposed to removing either one or both for obviously political reasons.

So, the main components of the obvious story are the Jesuit school vs the bishop, the idea that if a bishop’s politics do not necessarily match yours you can lose the right to call yourself Catholic, and these symbols are only divisive because one new component of Catholicism seems to be rejecting people to keep the Pharisees happy.

This and all connected with that part of the story will be debated for some time now. We will leave it aside.

The other part of the story, the thing that caught my eye, is very important if not missed.

In an earlier blog I referred to a situation in which a judge is requiring more of the non-gestational parent in a same sex marriage beyond the name on the birth certificate than is required of the non-gestational parent in the same situation if the couple were straight. This difference in treatment would imply a bit of inequality between opposite sex and same sex marriages that the judge accepts in spite of it being called “Marriage Equality” for a reason.

The case involves a same sex legally married couple who had to have their relationship dissolved through the legal divorce process as opposed to one of them just moving out. The fact that the judge is even handling the case shows he knows that it is a legal marriage and therefore one equal to a straight one.

So, while attempting to reduce the value of the marriage, because he is hearing a divorce related case, equality is implied and should be  recognized as such by the judge.

There are those who, in their opposition to same sex marriages, claim that the Bible has established one man and one woman as the only model recognized by most major religions.

Those in favor of same sex marriage do not see any requirement for any religious belief, cleric, or church to make a wedding legal as it is a civil arrangement between two people and the state.

For the latter group, the church can continue to have any requirements it wants for its faithful to get married according to its rules and to be considered so by other congregants. Beyond the civil license, an oath in front of a witness, and a signature on the legal papers that they must require of their congregants to make the church marriage legal in the eyes of the state, the church has no say in the civil marriage realm other than to follow the non-church rules.

Church doctrine should have no sway over marriages not performed under church rules.

Years ago, my Pre-Vatican II Catholic aunt married a Lutheran, and, although the church saw her as excommunicated for doing that, in the eyes of the state they were married and she, a Catholic, just went to the Lutheran church with her husband because they had no problem with an inter-faith marriage and followed their rules.

But, marriage is marriage and Jesus and all.

The bishop, however, has made a very clear distinction in his statement when he said,

“Catholic teaching that sacramental marriage is between a man and a woman.”

If marriage were just marriage, why would he say, “Sacramental marriage”, and not just “marriage”?

Because he knows that church and state marriages are not one and the same. Marriage in a church means nothing civilly until after the ceremony the couple sign the legal papers as they often do immediately in the sacristy, and not before as there could be a jilting, while getting married in City Hall requires no action related to the church.

A church wedding could mean nothing more to some couples than a fashion statement.

If you get married civilly, you get over 300 benefits involving income, taxes, property, legal rights, inheritance. Get married solely in a church you don’t get those. You get church stuff.

This being the case and, as the bishop so publicly stated, there is such a thing as sacramental marriage, then the churches should stick to dealing with that and not trying to change the legal and civil definition of marriage between two consenting adults.

Whenever the religious right goes after any type of marriage and demands the government change marriage for everyone to follow more closely their own church’s beliefs and rules, they must be reminded that no one is talking about “Sacramental Marriage”, but civil ones and they need to acknowledge that and leave those who are not members of their churches alone.

They can do whatever they want within their own religions, but, since they acknowledge the two types of marriage, they should “stay in their lanes”.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.