While Catholic leaders are free to define the nature/meaning of marriage and sexual activity for themselves, it isn't right for them to try to impose the same meaning and definitions on everyone else. That, however, is just what they appear to be doing.
Critics have argued that Roman Catholic leaders have been stepping over the line by trying to encourage the criminalization of gay marriage. It is claimed that these religious leaders are simply trying to have Catholic doctrine imposed upon all Americans, regardless of their religion, and that this would be a violation of the separation of church and state.
The "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons," document, already quoted above, states:
- "If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. ...When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
- "When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, "could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality", on condition that his "absolute personal opposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided. This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
An example of this in action comes from Massachusetts where Catholic lawmakers who support gay rights are under severe lobbying pressure from the Catholic Church unlike anything that they have ever seen before. Neither the church nor private Catholic groups have gone to such lengths before - even when it comes to issues like abortion or the death penalty. Most of the pressure occurs behind closed doors, but sometimes it occurs right in the pulpit with priests attacking legislators by name and questioning how well their parents raised them. One legislator has said "I would describe the Church's tactics as thug-like, diabolical, and totally void of openness."
Obviously the Catholic Church as a right to make its views known and individual Catholics have a right to lobby their representatives - there's nothing odd or wrong about that in principle. Here, however, we see what appears to be an organized effort to use the power of the government to enforce a particular conception of civil marriage on everyone even though it isn't shared by all Christians, much less by all citizens. Is that fair? Is that just?
What's the difference between the Catholic Church's current efforts and similar action taken on behalf of a constitutional amendment banning divorce or remarriage after divorce without the benefit of an annulment? Both of those are situations which the Catholic Church opposes - and for similar doctrinal reasons, too. However immoral they may think civil divorce is, they wouldn't be justified in trying to outlaw it. Same goes for gay marriage.
It appears, then, that there are very good reasons for criticizing the actions of Catholic Church leaders. They shouldn't try to impose their idea of marriage on the rest of society any more than society should impose a non-Catholic definition of marriage on the church. Granted, under Catholic doctrine a gay marriage is not a real "marriage" and is immoral, but why should non-Catholics be limited to the sorts of marriage treated as valid by the Vatican?
