"Fathers" Cooper, Schramm, Aufdermauer, Mich, Massingale, and the Gays, Part One

Not content with the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the question of homosex "marriage," a well-known rebel priest decides to run an opposing opinion in his St. Matthias parish bulletin. The Milwaukee Priests' Alliance (a union-wannabe bunch of priests) issued a press release concurring with the dissent. Fr. "Chuck" Schramm (whose picture is missing something...) of St Mary's/Hales Corners, also ran the piece with the parish bulletin. We are told that Fr Aufdermauer ran it with the St Aloysius/West Allis bulletin on October 22.

The author of the dissent is none other than Fr. Massingale, who (as you will see shortly) is a master of dissembling. He's a colleague of Dan Maguire, a revolting little heretic, and on the payroll of Marquette University, just like Maguire.

In essence, Massingale commits the intellectual sin of failing to recognize a hierarchy of values. Of course, it's possible that he simply 'forgot' about such distinctions...but knowing that he's on staff with Maguire, that's not likely.


The amendment’s second clause is: “. . .and a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state.”

...
This is the part which makes many Catholics pause, for it raises troubling concerns. Many fear that this clause could endanger laws and other arrangements which extend medical coverage (among other benefits) to unmarried households

Actually, "Father," the clause does NOT "endanger" such arrangements when they are voluntarily provided by an employer. Informed legal opinion attests to this. And your circle of friends is not "many" Catholics. It is, in reality, "many" dissidents.

Fr. Massingale brings up "the Levada exception" in San Francisco, which is about as germane as is the question of Space Aliens--but it serves Massingale's purpose of spreading foofoodust.

So he summarizes with the standard deception:


The first clause upholds one aspect of Catholic teaching, while the second part jeopardizes other Catholic principles (a right to healthcare.)


Some try to resolve this dilemma by saying that the proposed amendment does not automatically nullify existing laws or necessarily compel a court to do so in the future. This is true. But respected legal scholars agree that this is a risk or possibility. The amendment opens the door for such an outcome. In effect, this amendment requires us to take a human
rights gamble.

Let's unpack that. That marriage is a one-man/one-woman institution is simply non-negotiable. Our Bishops have made that clear, simply re-affirming Natural Law. Massingale would have us believe that the right to health-care takes precedence over the affirmation of Natural Law in marriage. He's wrong. Like abortion, this is a non-negotiable position. Healthcare is secondary (but certainly should not be ignored.) Here's a news report from the Vatican from October 18th, 2006:

Benedict XVI reminded politicians, particularly Catholics, that their choices and programs... it is necessary to address with "determination and clarity the risk of political and legislative options that go against fundamental values and anthropological and ethical principles rooted in the human being's nature." The Pope pointedly referred "to the defense of human life in all its phases, from its conception to natural death, and the promotion of the family founded on marriage." This implies avoiding the introduction "in public ordering of other forms of union that will contribute to destabilize [the family], obscuring its peculiar character and irreplaceable social role," he said cannot go against human life or the family.

The Pope's remarks underline the priorities: human life and marriage. Clear and succinct.

Massingale whines on and on and on without the least regard for priorities for a while, then slaps the authors of The Amendment:


One wonders why our legislators crafted an amendment which seems to go beyond the purpose of keeping a unique status for heterosexual unions.

Evidently Massingale never heard of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...

He attempts to wrap up this smelly package of stones masquerading as "teaching":


Since same-sex marriage is already illegal in Wisconsin and prohibited by church law, a “no”vote changes nothing. Gay marriages would remain illegal; the current unique status of heterosexual marriage remains unaltered; no one’s health care access is endangered.

A line directly from the Homosexual Collective's playbook. (This comes as no surprise.)

It is always disappointing, (but not surprising) to see the Intellectualoids attempting to re-write Natural Law.

However, for a priest to openly slap his Bishop by printing this load of manure in a parish bulletin--that's not just disappointing. It's outright rebellion. Tomas deTorquemada, call home!!

NEXT: I've been told that the Homosexual Collective is also fund-raising on the grounds of Milwaukee-area parishes. When the documentation arrives, you'll see it here!