Bishop Martino Speaks on Authentic Diversity and Catholic Identity, Stands Firm

SCRANTON, PA (Catholic Online) - Once again, Bishop Joseph Martino has acted in a manner which not only displays fidelity to his teaching office as a Catholic Bishop but great courage - in an age too often characterized by its opposite, cowardice. He has released further reflections on the issue of properly teaching authentic diversity and tolerance within a Catholic Educational Institution.

Our readers will remember that Misericordia University, located in the Bishop's Diocese, sponsored two talks given by homosexual activist Keith Boykin,over his explicit objection. Boykin is a best selling author and advocate for what I call the "equivalency movement" among active homosexuals. This activist effort seeks to use the Police Power of the State to mandate that the legal status of authentic marriage also be given to homosexual paramours, even though such relationships can never be a marriage. After the event, the Bishop asked Misericordia to consider discontinuing its "Diversity Institute" which had sponsored the lectures.

Now the good Bishop has issued the following Refelection which we offer to all of our readers. It can be found on the website of the Diocese of Scranton. In it he not only instructs the faithful but reasserts his intention to stand firm and his obligation to continue on in his efforts:

Bishop Issues Reflection on Teaching of Diversity and Tolerance

Bishop Joseph F. Martino has issued a reflection on how the teaching of diversity and tolerance relates to the teaching of the Catholic Church. The reflection follows:

"A substantial amount of media coverage and public commentary ensued after I asked Misericordia University to seriously consider discontinuing its Diversity Institute. Students and others in the community related how this Institute has furthered the advancement of tolerance, understanding and harmony between people of different races and cultures.

These are all worthy goals. All people of good will should work toward these ends.

Misericordia University, as a Catholic institution, has a responsibility for helping the community achieve these goals. However, precisely because it is a Catholic institution, it also has a responsibility to transmit Catholic teaching to its students in ways that are not ambiguous or confusing.

As I said in my previous statement, students should learn respect for all races and cultures, but viewpoints that are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching should not be presented under the guise of �diversity.� Doing so within a formal structure sanctioned by the institution gives the impression that these viewpoints are acceptable, or that all morality is relative.

As Catholics, we must distinguish between authentic tolerance and an �anything goes� mindset. For example, would the Diversity Institute be justified in hosting a speaker who believes the Holocaust is a myth? Or one who believes slavery is okay because certain people are inferior? Or one who believes women can be exploited because they are the �weaker sex�? There are people out there who actually believe this nonsense, and they would be perfectly willing to come to the campus to tell you why.

Their views are certainly �diverse,� but does that qualify them to be given a platform in the name of tolerance? Or should they be allowed to make a presentation without any retort from the Catholic perspective?

As Catholics, we believe there is an objective, moral Truth � given to us by Jesus Christ. This Truth is timeless, and it cannot be altered by the shifting tides of popular culture. If our faith and our actions are not rooted in this Truth, we risk contributing to the �dictatorship of relativism� cited by then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in a homily given just prior to his election as Pope Benedict XVI. He said:

�To have a clear faith, according to the creed of the Church, is often labeled as fundamentalism. While relativism, that is, allowing oneself to be carried about with every wind of �doctrine,� seems to be the attitude that is fashionable. A dictatorship of relativism is being constituted that recognizes nothing as absolute and which only leaves the �I� and its whims as the ultimate measure.�

As the Bishop, it is not only my right, but my obligation to ensure that authentic Catholic teaching is being provided in all Catholic institutions in this Diocese, and that viewpoints in opposition to this teaching are not being presented as acceptable alternatives.

I voiced my �absolute disapproval� of Misericordia�s hosting of Keith Boykin not because of his sexual orientation, but because he is a well known proponent of morality that is disturbingly opposed to Catholic teaching, such as homosexual relations and same sex marriage. Furthermore, no presentation was made to balance Mr. Boykin�s viewpoints with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

That is why I asked Misericordia, which asserted that it �is committed deeply to its Catholic mission,� to convey how it teaches Catholic morality regarding sexuality and homosexuality, and to produce concrete evidence. It is regrettable that the University chose to respond with a brief statement without any such evidence.

Nevertheless, I continue to urge Misericordia University to fulfill the four essential characteristics of a Catholic institution of higher learning. As I pointed out in briefer form in my initial statement on this matter, these are:

1. A Christian inspiration not only of individuals but of the university community as such;

2. A continuing reflection in the light of the Catholic faith upon the growing treasury of human knowledge, to which it seeks to contribute by its own
research;

3. Fidelity to the Christian message as it comes to us through the Church;

4. An institutional commitment to the service of the people of God and of the human family in their pilgrimage to the transcendent goal which gives meaning to life.

(Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Constitution on Catholic Universities)

I also offer this postscript to those who criticize me for taking public stances that may not be popular or �politically correct,� or may not agree with their own personal notions of what �progressive� Catholic doctrine should be. My job as a Bishop is to promulgate the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church to all the faithful. I will continue to do so."

The Bishop is doing his job. I wish his fellow Bishops, Cardinals, and Priests would do likewise. There are too many sermons that lack instruction in our faith. I'm tired of feel-good information from the sermon instead of TRUTH which is what Christ gave us in the gospels.

If you read your bible, it is clear that moral truth exists. It is also clear that when we ignore these truths, God allows the protection He gives us as His children to be lifted. He shows us the consequences of our actions out of love, so that we will learn to make better choices. Look at Sodom and Gomorah. Look at AIDS. We have choices to make.

Our fore fathers made select choices based on God's truth at the creation of our nation as God made them at the creation of man-kind. We have no rights to change God's laws to make up new ones of our own. Our founding fathers knew this. They created a nation under one God with liberty and justice for all. They made it so that you could have differnt opinions, but still be citizens of a free nation.

It is up to us as Americans to continue that line of justice. Individuals make personal choices. Laws are made to uphold the Truth and for the good of the many, not the individual.

Same-gender or incestuous sexual relationships do not uphold the good of the nation. Pornography and sexual relations with a minor do not uphold the rights of the minor or the good of the nation.

We need to stop asking the government to create lots of laws for small groups of individuals, but to make laws for the greater good of our nation's citizens from the unborn to the natural death of our oldest and less fortunate or less-than= perfect-in-health citizens.

The teaching of our church is clear on all these issues. The fact that many think it is the individual that is hurt in this teaching shows how far from the truth these so called "catholics" have fallen away from the truth.

The Pope is our leader and in line with Christ's teachings. The Bishiop is in line with the Pope. WE should all be in line with our Pope as well. If not, we are not truly Catholic Christians. We are not living in truth.

Laura | 8/31/2009

There is a serious difference between hosting a debate or an inquiry and giving someone the floor to pontificate.

In the venue of debate and inquiry you could certainly give time to people who espouse immoral or theologically incorrect positions. The point of debate and inquiry is to examine arguments - most of which are wrong in some fashion or another. It makes perfect sense for a Catholic university to include advocates for positions in opposition to the Church's teachings in debates and inquiries.

The point of pontification is to allow the speaker a closed forum to espouse his beliefs and market them aggressively to an audiance. It makes no sense what so ever for a Catholic university to become a venue for people to pontificate in opposition to the Church's teachings. Keith Boykin was not there to entertain debate, but to market a message in opposition to the Church in a closed forum.

Furthermore, it would probably be best to address a few logical fallacies presented in this comments thread:

"If I enforce my Catholic moral teaching on the citizens of this nation by making them the law of the land then I am creating a precedent for those of other religions to do likewise."

This is a combination of a Straw Man Argument and a Slippery Slope - both logic fallacies. We already enforce our Catholic moral teachings on the citizens. We punish those who commit violence on others, who steal from others, who commit vandalism, who commit fraud, etc. with the deprivation of their basic liberties. Thankfully, however, I live in a nation that was founded with enough respect for those moral teachings (including Subsidiarity) to recognize that the powers of the state to govern must be used sparingly and that people should largely be left to make their own choices.

Dismiss those moral teachings on the grounds that other people have other religious beliefs (the absurd relativist argument) and you have no grounds for ANY laws. I don't think it is in anyone's interests to exchange limited government driven by the will of the governed for anarchy.

"When I cannot grant equal protection under the law,"

This is a demonstrably false claim by advocates of same-sex "marriage." Equal Protection under the law actually clearly prohibits extending the definition of Civil Marriage to include same-sex pairings. Equal Protection under the law requires that every exercise of State Power in law be justified by a Rational Basis that explains what State Interest (read: Public Good) is specifically achieved by a law. This prohibits legislators from, for example, bestowing gifts on their friends and family out of the public coffers - or even just applying incentives and punishments at whim - such as buying everyone named "Steve" a new car.

The Rational Basis presented by the lawmakers for the extension of the Privileges of a Civil Marriage License are strictly rooted in Human Progeneration. It is on this basis that unions that are identified as reproductively defective by public record are excluded. In particular, incestuous unions and same-sex unions are automatically excluded by definition. Further, all other forms of partnerships - no matter how domestically oriented or caring they may be - are not considered marriage.

To extend Civil Marriage Licenses to opposite-sex partnerships is a clear violation of Equal Protection unless all non-sexual partnerships are likewise sanctioned - from business partners to co-dependent elderly siblings.

May the Bishops continue to advocate for our Catholic moral values and rebuke actions taken that abuse the resources and reputation of the Roman Catholic Church to work against her moral teachings.

Marty Lund | 3/6/2009

| U.S. News