I will continue to stand in genuine awe of all those couples — straight, gay and lesbian — whose day-to-day, year-to-year, and decade-to-decade faithfulness to each other is to me a sacrament, a believable embodied sign, of the absolute faithfulness of God to us all.

Fr. Lawrence & Archbishop Lori

A sacrament is not just “a believable embodied sign,” it is an outward sign signifying an inward reality. The outward sign of Baptism is water washing over our skin, cleansing it, and the inward reality is that the action really does cleanse our souls of sin. The outward sign of the Holy Eucharist is the partaking of bread and wine which sustains our bodies, and the inward reality is that only the accidents of bread and wine remain and we are really partaking of the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ which sustains our souls.

The outward sign of a same-sex union certainly does not correspond with the inward reality. Yes, God’s relationship with us is one of faithfulness but it is also one of fecundity, something which a same-sex union biologically lacks by nature. Fr. Lawrence presumably would consider natural marriage and same-sex unions to be equal to my relationship with my old high school buddies who, decade-to-decade, have remained faithful friends.

Turning to decisions at Vatican II (1962-65), Lawrence said an eventual change in church teaching was possible, “and we could come to recognize the total, exclusive and permanent union of gay and lesbian couples as part of the sacrament of matrimony.”

Ah, Vatican II: the go-to reference to support any sort of dissent. Few of your hearers or readers will have read all the documents, and if you don’t specify which actual document you are using to bolster your dissent, all the better!

The church has always “been willing to marry couples in the church even though their ages suggest strongly that the procreation and education of children is no longer a possibility,” Lawrence said.

“Could we not then say that their devotion to and support of each other … could be recognized by the church as a valid sacrament of God’s unrelenting faithfulness to us just as much as the union of an elderly straight couple?” he asked. “Neither will procreate children, but both can be sacraments of God’s faithfulness in the living out of their commitment to each other.”

Any middle-schooler instructed in the theology of the body would be able to point out the flaw in Fr. Lawrence’s reasoning. The bodies of an elderly straight couple are still naturally complementary to each other; if God wished he could bless such a couple with a child, as he did with Abraham and Sarah.

Lawrence stressed such was not the teaching of the church, but said, “I personally believe that this is a possible line of future development in theology and perhaps eventually even in church teaching. And if this is even a possibility, could we not judge that civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples ought to be allowed by the state at this time?”

It is doubtful that a faulty understanding of the nature of man and woman represents a possibility that the church could change its teaching on the sacrament of marriage. Do pastors have the right to teach their flocks anything they want as long as the pastor himself can contort logic into a presumed “theological possibility?” Don’t the laity deserve to be taught the truth? It is also possible, by his reasoning, that the church could allow communion to non-Catholics in non-extraordinary circumstances because their digestive systems are just like ours, and many of them express belief in the Real Presence, as understood by their own denominations.

Catholics have enough of an uphill battle in the fight for natural marriage against well-funded LGBT groups, an oppressively secular and sexually confused culture, and undercatechized parishioners; it doesn’t help that a few of our own pastors willfully dissent from the successors to the apostles and distort Church teaching on the sacraments.

P.S. It’s difficult to say whether Fr. Lawrence is influencing his flock or they are influencing him, but “The St. Vincent parishioners gave Lawrence a standing ovation.”

P.P.S. St. Vincent’s “Our Pastor” site is pretty revealing about Fr. Lawrence:

He can be pretty opinionated and challenging in his homilies, but he doesn’t insist or even expect that everyone will agree with him: he encourages people to learn and think for themselves.

Um, aren’t you supposed to be teaching people about the faith? Do shepherds let the sheep fend for themselves?

He has been active in social justice ministries all his life, starting with the Civil Rights movement in the 60’s and the Peace movement in the 70’s, and is today one of the leaders in the Inclusive Housing movement.

It’s hard not to be predisposed to presuming that a dissenting priest is “active in social justice;” those terms don’t seem to mean much in modern Church life other than an alignment with typically politically leftist movements. A priest who undermines his bishop’s teaching in front of his own flock and refers to himself as “active in social justice ministries” risks propagating the belief in the laity that care of the poor and marginalized is more important than being in union with one’s bishop and the clear teaching of the Church.

In New Hampshire, Minnesota and North Carolina, pro-marriage advocates are on offense, working to repeal gay marriage (NH) or adding marriage to state constitutions that don’t have it yet (MN, NC).

In New Jersey, Maryland and Washington State, gay marriage activists are trying to legalize gay marriage, and are attempting to prevent the issue going before a vote of the people in those states.

Today in Maine, gay marriage activists announced that they will attempt to pass gay marriage by a vote of the people in 2012. The people of Maine defeated gay marriage in 2009 by a 53%-47% margin.

Meanwhile, the presidential election in November will between a Republican candidate who supports marriage and Barack Obama, whose record on marriage is abysmal.

The outcome of this race will directly influence the future make-up of the Supreme Court and, in turn, how this issue is ultimately decided in the courts.

There are three outcomes to this year’s marriage battles:

1) gay marriage activists and advocates of protecting marriage split these battles and the war for marriage continues on into the future.

2) gay marriage activists succeed in more states than they fail, convincing themselves that momentum to redefine marriage is on their side, emboldening them to press on, while religious liberty continues to be rolled back as a result.

3) advocates of protecting marriage succeed in a majority (if not all) of these contests and we go on to remember 2012 as the year that efforts to redefine marriage were stopped in their tracks. Emboldened by success, advocates of protecting marriage go on to repeal gay marriage where it is currently legal and are left free to dedicate themselves wholeheartedly to the important task of building up marriage as the foundational social institution of our country.

… I don’t know about you, but I want to see #3 come to pass this year.

Why is it important for Catholics in particular to work actively to protect marriage? The seven bishops of New Jersey explain why succinctly today:

Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?

Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach that marriage is the union of man and a woman.

Their entire letter is well worth reading. They recommend doing three things to help protect marriage:

First, pray for all married couples and all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third, we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman.”

I would add a Fourth thing to do: join/support the National Organization for Marriage (where I work) which is dedicated to protecting marriage across the U.S. and a Fifth thing to do if you live in one of the states I mention above: find the local group in your state in charge of protecting marriage and join them.

They will have things for you to do which will enormously help in the fight to protect marriage.

Sixth, take action on these pending action alerts right now:

• New Hampshire SSM Repeal Vote
• Stop the NJ Same-Sex Marriage Bill!
• Help Stop Same-Sex Marriage in Washington!
• Tell Governor Christie You Expect Him to Keep His Promises on Marriage
• Thank Senate President Mike Miller! (MD)

Seventh, share this post on Facebook, Twitter and via Email!

I’ve written many times before about the threats of redefining marriage, to religious liberty, to individuals, to Catholic institutions, and — most importantly — to the next generation and to society. Please join this important fight. Let’s make 2012 a year of marriage victories we can be proud about. THANK YOU!

• Letter from Archbishop O’Brien (PDF)
• Letter from Governor O’Malley (PDF)

===

Over the weekend Catholic Governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley released private letters he had exchanged with Archbishop of Baltimore Edwin O’Brien over the issue of same-sex marriage (an effort to pass same-sex marriage in Maryland earlier this year failed because it lacked the votes, now O’Malley has signed on to a renewed effort to redefine marriage in the next legislative session).

An important part of the backstory here is that Gov. O’Brien probably feels encouraged by the adulation heaped on Catholic governor Andrew Cuomo of New York after he ignored the Catholic bishops to push same-sex marriage into law there.

There’s a lesson here: when one Catholic governor gets away with ignoring the warnings of his bishops, other Catholic governors and elected officials feel emboldened to do the same.

Anyway, Archbishop O’Brien is intent to avoid the same result happening in Maryland.

I’m searching for the original letters exchanged between O’Malley and O’Brien. In the meantime, here is what’s filtered through the press:

Two days before Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley (D) announced plans to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill, a Catholic archbishop strongly urged that he reconsider the move, suggesting the governor was acting out of “mere political expediency.”

Edwin F. O’Brien, the archbishop of Baltimore, said in a letter late last month that sponsoring the bill would “deeply conflict” with O’Malley’s Catholic faith and that he should resist pressure to do so after New York’s recent legalization of same-sex marriage.

“Maryland is not New York,” O’Brien wrote. “We urge you not to allow your role as the leader of our state to be used in allowing the debate surrounding the definition of marriage to be determined by mere political expediency. The people of Maryland deserve no less.”

O’Malley responded to O’Brien on Thursday, citing a litany of issues on which he shares the church’s views. But, O’Malley wrote, “when shortcomings in our laws bring about a result that is unjust, I have a public obligation to try to change that injustice.”

More:

O’Brien’s appeal to O’Malley was made in starkly personal terms.

“I am well aware that the recent events in New York have intensified pressure on you to lend your active support to legislation to redefine marriage,” O’Brien wrote. “As advocates for the truths we are compelled to uphold, we speak with equal intensity and urgency in opposition to your promoting a goal that so deeply conflicts with your faith, not to mention the best interests of our society.”

O’Brien continued: “It is especially hard to fathom your taking such a step, given the fact that our requests last year for you to sponsor legislation to repeal the death penalty and support students in Catholic and other nonpublic schools went unheeded.”

A sample of Gov. O’Malley’s response:

“I do not presume, nor would I ever presume as governor, to question or infringe upon your freedom to define, to preach about and to administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church,” O’Malley wrote. “But on the public issue of granting equal civil marital rights to same-sex couples, you and I disagree. . . . I look forward to working with you on other issues of mutual agreement. And I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a religious leader without questioning your motives.”

Right now I’m relying on what the Washington Post found most interesting to copy. I’m sure I would probably highlight different parts of the letters.

I think O’Malley’s line about “never presuming … to preach about or administer the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church” is particularly revealing.” The issue, after all, isn’t who wears a miter vs. who was elected governor. The issue is the pre-political institution of the family, and the right of the Church to defend the family when it comes under attack in the public square. Natural law, in other words, not theology.

I also doubt O’Malley realizes that being personally warned about why he should not attack the family by redefining marriage could also serve as a necessary precursor to canonical penalties since he has chosen to ignore the advice and firm admonition of his Archbishop.

I also find it fascinating that Governor O’Malley chose to release these letters. Abp. O’Brien was performing a courtesy by keeping the correspondence private. Now that O’Malley has chosen to bring the public in on the conversation, I wonder how Abp. O’Brien will respond.

UPDATE — forgot to include this factoid: O’Malley “often attends weekday Masses” according to WaPo.

Standing with House and Senate supporters, Gov. Martin O’Malley announced this afternoon that he will lead the charge for gay marriage in Maryland and put his name on a bill that allows same-sex couples to wed.

“Marylanders of all walks of life want their children to live in a loving, stable, committed home protected under the law,” O’Malley said. He said it would be one of “a small handful” of legislative priorities.

The governor was supportive of same-sex marriage last year, but stayed mostly in the background. Today’s announcement was rumored for weeks, with chatter increasing after a gay marriage bill was signed into law in New York.

The Maryland Catholic Conference immediately issued a statement calling the governor’s decision “regrettable.” “The moral and social impacts of redefining marriage would be pervasive and severe,” according to the statement.

Martin O’Malley is a Catholic and a graduate of my alma mater, the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. As is Maureen Dowd, who yukked it up about eternal damnation with Andrew Cuomo recently in a same-sex-marriage-victory cackles column.

As you may recall, last year, churches inundated Annapolis to stop an attempt at redefining marriage there. Pray that they will fight another day.

And pray too we all recommit ourselves to supporting actual marriages, practically, in our lives, too — not only in political fights.