His eminence, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, wrote conclusively about history in his "What Is Marriage?" (July 7 Forum) but inconclusively answered his headline's question with apparent ambiguity. That is, if there is "great difference between what a law can decree and what God has created" does his eminence wish us to understand that marriage as God's creation defies state law and decree? But that could not possibly be what he would want us to understand. Or is it?
Let us respectfully ask if his eminence would acknowledge the church's obligation to secular law and decree? Would he so acknowledge? Or would he abjure? Would he render to Caesar or would he courageously defy? The church has laws that should now become the state's? What are citizens to understand about the First Amendment and the role of religion in a democracy?
But could it be that his eminence knew perfectly well what his words meant when he pressed pen to paper? And once removed from ambiguity does his answer to the state's role in marriage become quite simple: The state has what the church might give it?
If citizens are required to know "what God has created," will they then be armed with knowledge that will destroy our democracy? Must they seek conformity of their laws to God's?
Ambiguity lifted becomes something much worse. Is this what we are to understand God would want?
WILLIAM J. CURRAN III