Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, released a statement on today’s Supreme Court rulings on marriage.
The two called it a “profound injustice” and say the Court “got it wrong.”
“Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth.
These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.
“Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.
“Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense, and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.
“When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to “the beginning” of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19). In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand. The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.
“Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, with renewed purpose we call upon all of our leaders and the people of this good nation to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage: one man, one woman, for life. We also ask for prayers as the Court’s decisions are reviewed and their implications further clarified.”
June 27, 2013 at 2:07 am
"God almighty", if he exists, isn't punishing me at all. He's punishing you. I'm having a wonderful life and I'm very happy for friends of mine who can get married if they desire… Life is good. You, however, seem to be living a life of suffering under your god. Why is that?
June 27, 2013 at 2:57 am
When sodomy wins, they come crawling out of the woodwork. Welcome akg41470! What brings an atheistic, pro-sodomy person such as yourself to a Catholic blog this evening?
June 27, 2013 at 3:12 am
I'm glad that marriage is not sodomy, no matter how much they wish it was.
June 27, 2013 at 5:05 am
I've been here quite a few times, David C, but the general whining of the anti-equality populous today has been quite interesting to me: you are, to be blunt, a curio. So I come back and prod a bit to find out what's really in your heads. Fascinating, really.
But "pro-sodomy"? That's an interesting one. What makes you think I'm "pro-sodomy"? Honestly, I could care less about "sodomy" in this issue, I'm more concerned with people's happiness.
June 27, 2013 at 2:09 pm
I'm sorry. You are "pro-equality"! The only problem is, you cannot separate that which they are(equal) from that which they do(sodomy).
June 28, 2013 at 3:44 am
Are you so obsessed with sex that you define people by their sexual habits? How about those who have no sexual habits – priests and cardinals, in theory – are they undefinable?
June 27, 2013 at 5:17 am
People's "happiness"? Methinks you've never read a study on the rampant depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide that pervades the homosexual culture.
Laughable.
June 27, 2013 at 5:48 am
Paul:
A requirement of marriage is that a "coupling can produce offspring"??? Really? Not under our laws.
The eviscerates your argument 100%. You get an F.
As regards the voting analogy – why are you afraid to answer the question?
Lastly, as regards gay marriage causing you to cheat with the town floozie, that was directed to Jericho. Are you Jericho AND Paul? Are you Susan too? Are you Legion? Is this whole site just me arguing with a 14 year old zitty little girl in Montana? That explains everything.
June 27, 2013 at 5:49 am
Susan, your sources are not credible. They are laughable.
June 27, 2013 at 5:51 am
Jericho, your inability to meet my simple challenge to support your bald assertions is telling.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Will you next tell us the world is flat?
June 27, 2013 at 6:00 am
And let me say this also Paul, when you conflate intercourse and marriage, you're insulting me and all other married people. My married life is more than f***ing. If that's what you think marriage is, you're wrong. And I feel sorry for your wife. Marriage is about partnership and commitment. That's not some new radical thing I'm saying – all our marriage laws support that. Our parenting laws are separate. Your words suggest you haven't read any of them. You should.
June 27, 2013 at 8:27 am
Pat, gay "marriage" isn't because it does not fit natural law. Since the beginning of man, marriage was a man and a woman, with some exceptions to polygamy. But even that still holds to the opposite sex pairing while demeaning women. Gay relationships have zero chance of producing offspring. Ever. Therefore it can not be called marriage.
Now, since you chose to pass your religious beliefs on a Catholic blog, you should understand that as Catholics, we find this ruling as illogical. We believe in God's word which tells us that a man leaves his mother and joins with his wife and two become one flesh. That's it. We do not hate those with same sex attraction but pray that they do not choose to act on those inclinations for the sake of their souls. Choose God not one's own "feelings" which is no where near the wisdom of Him.
As for the voting rights analogy, it is a non sequitur. There are no grave, soul threatening moral implications with voting rights as with same sex "marriage".
June 27, 2013 at 12:11 pm
“If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples ‘oranges,’ the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an ‘apple’ instead of an ‘orange,’ but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.” Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., explained.
June 27, 2013 at 12:27 pm
This comment has been removed by the author.
June 27, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Pat, for someone who claims an air of intellectual superiority, your inability to actually engage points raised by others is quite telling. You erect a mountain of strawman, create woefully inadequate analogies, and basically ignore any research that contradict yours. You are simply not worth the time that too many of us have spent trying to engage with you. Pity.
June 27, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Pat said "On the contrary, a recent peer-reviewed research report from Australia shows that children in gay families thrive. Shall I send it to you?"
Yes, please do. Should be interesting since the Australian researchers you refer to are still in the process of collecting and analyzing data and HAVE PRODUCED ONLY A PRELIMINARY REPORT – though they've gone into the project with the intention of supporting ss marriage. Furthermore, they're using convenience and snowball sampling in their study, which means that the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample used. In other words, their findings will mean exactly NOTHING (see "Recruitment" section at this article:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/646 ).
You also note that "Massachusetts divorce rates have "plummeted" since gay marriage was made legal there." Well, of course divorce rates have declined (though NOWHERE in the country have they "plummeted"). They tend to do that when marriage rates decline. When people don't get married, they don't get divorced. Marriage rates decline when marriage means nothing, as it has come to mean in Massachusetts, thanks, in part, to "ss marriage".
June 27, 2013 at 5:47 pm
Looks like Pat just got "outed". LOL!
June 29, 2013 at 6:35 am
@akg4147; i believe you have it backwards. The only group of people who insist on defining people is the gay community. If all people follow the natural law, there would be no controversy. By definition they define themselves by their sexual habits. If someone named Joe was attracted to someone named Bill but did not act on it, no one on the planet would know anything about either male's desires. It's whenn both these men act on it whoen they declare to the world their sexual habits. Priests and cardinals are celibate but that does not define them as priest/cardinal. They are ordained in the Catholic Church, minister to their flock, consecrate the Eucharist, preach the word of God. They practice celibacy because they are not planning on being married. Just like anyone who is not married, if they are Catholic, they need to be celibate or they commit the sin of fornication.
I hopr this helps explain the point better.
June 29, 2013 at 6:37 am
Ugh. Sorry for the terrible spelling. It is late.
June 29, 2013 at 4:08 pm
1. Aver:
This is an incredibly important issue and worth of clear thinking. You're confusing your religion with your country. Religions differ about what constitutes a "Grave, soul threatening" sin and that's why our civil laws leave that to the churches. Accordingly, the churches should extend a little bit more of the same courtesy to civic authorities. For example, my brother's church teaches that women should submit to their husbands and they mean that so strongly that the civil laws should reflect that and remove a wife's rights to challenge him in any way or ever divorce him. I'm sure you agree that we don't want that religious view enacted into our laws.
Also, you expressly state that a civil marriage requires the ability to produce offspring. That is 100% false. You clearly have NO understanding of our laws and public policies, So it makes sense that you're upset. You're applying 13 century beliefs to 21st century issues. I respectfully request that you read our marriage laws and our parenting laws to understand how they operate and then you will understand 2 gay men who apply for a government license to form a family should not be denied that license by our government.
2. Paul,
Oh, come ON. All you do is boldly ignore my reasoned arguments, my analogies and my specific questions. In reply, you've added no substance or counterargument, you've make intentionally broad and vague references to "important research" (i.e. the unaccredited rantings of foil-hatted zealots??) and then have the nerve to say that I can't be reasoned with, so you're taking your toys and going home. Just man-up and admit that this is an important issue and you weren't prepared to be challenged with facts and critical analysis.
3. C'est moi,
The preliminary report is still peer-reviewed. It is SCHOLARSHIP on this topic. You just don't like what is says. And marriage rates have declined in most US states while the fact remains that the state that had gay marriage first and has had it for over 10 years has a low divorce rate as compared to other states. The question YOU should be asking yourself is "how can I reasonably believe the anti-equality crowd when their baseless dire predictions never come to pass, and if anything, marriage is stronger in Massachusetts than in other US states?"
June 29, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Pat,
We as Catholics believe that there is only truth. That of Jesus Christ. There are portions of truth but two things can not be the same. For a great example read Fr. Ricks comment above. There is only one definition of marriage not two, therefore the one you support does not exist.
I have not commented on civil marriage as you suggest but on natural law. Your brother's religion, sounds harsh and it would certainly not conform with the truth of the Catholic church and that of God, has no bearing on the topic because it does not call for the redefining of the definition of marriage. We also have religious views enacted in our laws: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.
You are right about how important this is. Remember, the order is God then country.
June 29, 2013 at 10:57 pm
Av8er,
But only civil law is at issue here. Not canon law, not religious law, not any of the theories of natural law (Aristotelean, christian, islamic, etc.)
What Jesus believed about marriage isn't dispositive.
June 30, 2013 at 7:32 pm
You are on a Catholic Blog.
June 30, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Av8er,
There's no such thing as a Catholic blog. There is a RC church. And there are Roman Catholics.
You are using a blog in an attempt to influence civil law. That's fine, but at least admit it.
P.