Bishop Salvatore Cordileone has been strongly involved in Californians’ efforts to preserve the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman.
Now, the bishop of Oakland, Calif., has become chairman of the U.S. Bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, and he will be working to promote traditional marriage in the face of legislative efforts to legalize same-sex “marriage.”
“Marriage and the family are the essential coordinates for society,” he said when Archbishop Timothy Dolan, the bishops’ conference president, appointed him to the position Jan. 11. “How well we as a society protect and promote marriage and the family is the measure of how well we stand for the inviolable dignity and good of every individual in our society, without exception.”
Bishop Cordileone has an extensive background in the area of the canonical understanding of marriage.
The ad hoc marriage committee was established by the bishops in the fall of 2008 with the support of the Knights of Columbus. The committee’s work includes a catechetical and educational initiative titled “Marriage: Unique for a Reason.” The initiative’s materials include a video, viewer’s guide and resource booklet.
In an interview, Bishop Cordileone talked about what Catholics need to understand and to do to if we’re to enter more effectively into the public debate about marriage in our society.
You have called marriage and the family “the most vital and defining issue of our day.” Why?
For a society to be thriving and strong, it has to rely on citizens who are honest, virtuous, industrious and able to fulfill their promises. And where do people get their education, in the full sense of education, not just in the sense of imparting knowledge? Primarily in their families. So solid marriages and families are essential to a thriving society.
What’s the cornerstone of marriage between a woman and a man?
The reality of marriage as the union of a mother and a father is grounded in our very biology. A child comes into the world by the union of a man and a woman. That’s a basic biological fact that cannot be denied. There’s a mother and a father for every child.
What do Catholics most need to understand to enter reasonably and effectively into the public debate over marriage in our society?
Our people need to understand what’s really at stake here, and that’s the very concept of marriage itself. Is it a relationship to be defined by adults for their mutual benefit and enjoyment? Or is it a relationship to bring children into the world and to provide them with the best possible context for their well-being and education?
If it’s first and foremost about children, then we’ll want children to be connected to their mothers and fathers.
The definition of marriage as a relationship that exists “solely for the benefit of adults,” you point out, is an extremely recent development. In an interview on EWTN, you cited it as “the greatest error of our times.”
It’s a completely novel concept. From the beginning of the human race, up until a few years ago, marriage has been understood as the best possible context for raising children, for giving children what they need, so they can be protected and nurtured.
Why exclude people of the same sex as heads of a family?
Because children need, deserve and long for a mother and a father. The optimal situation for children is to be raised by the man and the woman who brought them into the world in a loving, committed, stable relationship.
Many studies show the role of the father figure — just the presence of the father figure in the family — is especially critical. Children need that. When they don’t have it, they long for it.
As someone wiser than I put it, when a child is born, the mother is sure to be nearby. There’s no guarantee the father will be nearby. Society needs a cultural mechanism to connect fathers to their children, and that mechanism is marriage.
How does divorce fit into the bigger picture?
Sometimes divorce happens beyond people’s control, beyond their will for it to happen. Many single parents are making great sacrifices to give their children the best possible upbringing in less-than-ideal circumstances, and those parents need and deserve our affirmation and our support. Still, society should do everything it can to help children have what is best for them.
Where does this error of thinking about marriage as “solely for the benefit of adults” come from?
Well, if you trace it back far enough, I’m convinced it comes from the contraceptive mentality.
The Church has always understood that the two ends of marriage are: first, the procreation and education of offspring and, second, the union of the man and the woman for the mutual good of the two spouses. They’re inseparable. The contraceptive mentality, however, attempts to separate those two.
When contraception became much more available and prevalent because of marketing, as well as technology in the ’60s, we began to see much more sexual promiscuity. With more promiscuity, you have more children born out of wedlock. Because contraception is not perfect — it misfires, so to speak — children are conceived, so now we need abortion as a backup. We also see a rise in divorce.
What’s essential to the definition of marriage?
The Church has long understood the three “goods” of marriage as defining what is essential to marriage. Those three “goods” — the language comes from St. Augustine — are procreation, fidelity and permanence.
So how has the contraceptive mentality eaten away at this essential definition?
With the contraceptive mentality, we saw sexual promiscuity, which led to the novel concept of so-called “open” marriages. That strikes down the good of fidelity in marriage. Then we saw couples entering into marriage without any intention of having children, so that strikes down procreation. And in the early ‘70s, we had states passing laws allowing for no-fault divorce. When we’re in a divorce culture rather than a marriage culture, that strikes down the permanence of marriage.
So, this erosion of the meaning of marriage has been going on for a very long time.
And now we’re facing same-sex “marriage.”
It’s the latest and, I would say, most drastic, episode in this long-term erosion of the meaning of marriage.
What’s the result of emotionally changing the definition of marriage away from the way it has been reasonably understood since the beginning of the human race?
The result of changing its definition is that marriage becomes drained of all meaning, because it can be defined in any way the people involved want to define it. If we start changing what is essential to marriage in its definition, then there is no end to it. If it doesn’t have to be a man and a woman, why does it have to be two people? Can’t there be several partners, male and female, in a marriage? Who’s to say it should be limited to two? So what is the point of government giving benefits to married people?
When we defend marriage between a man and a woman, our opponents say we’re just imposing our religion on everyone else. What’s the answer to that?
This is not a matter of religion. This is how every society has understood marriage in all of human history. The truth is: They’re imposing their new idea of marriage — an idea no society has ever had before — on everyone else. This is a very serious social experiment that will have dire consequences.
The Church plainly has the clarity of thinking we need to build a new marriage culture. How are we going to work together to get the word out?
The pulpit is one key means, and I would hope to see homily resources for catechesis on marriage. The U.S. bishops’ conference is currently working on a video series that can be used for catechesis called “Marriage: Unique for a Reason.”
We also need to look into getting this into the curriculum, especially in our high schools and religious-education programs. Stand With Children, a marriage-advocacy program started in California by Catholics for the Common Good , is a great place for lay Catholics to begin.
You said we need a massive educational effort to defend marriage. Where should that begin?
We need to start with young people, teaching them the basic facts of life. The whole way man and woman are designed in nature, all the changes that take place in our bodies — especially the woman’s body — are geared to conceiving a new life and then nurturing that life to birth and even after birth.
Beginning with biology will help our young people better respect their own bodies, and it will lay the groundwork we need to teach them all the other reasons behind the Church’s teaching: the psychology, sociology, developing the virtue to be able to sustain a lifelong committed relationship, the benefits people derive from that relationship personally and the benefits to society. Then we can move out to the theology underlying marriage, the mystical marriage between Christ and the Church. It’s all interconnected. We need to begin with the biology and move out from there.
Register correspondent Sue Ellen Browder writes from Ukiah, California.
Jimmy Akin: Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass?
Matthew Warner: Should the Church Preemptively Withdraw From the Civil Marriage Business?
Comments
Post a Comment
Empty rhetoric.
When I see a Catholic Bishop personally involve himself in a wounded marriage that
has been violated for twenty years, get to the bottom of what has gone on and make
it CLEAR to the violator(s) that they have the choice to attempt to heal it, or whomever
chooses not to try and to make up for their violations, yesterday, will be formally
excommunicated, yesterday, THEN I will take his rhetoric with more than disdain.
Otherwise, men like “Bishop Cordileone” should refrain from their deceptions.
Last week the daily readings at Mass were from Genesis. Any one who has any doubts about what the creator had in mind for the human race should read them and read them again (especially the majority of so called Catholics[if polls can be believed] who do not oppose same gender marriage.
The problem is too many Catholics do not believe Genesis Chapters 1-11. I know nuns that even say that belief in the Bible creation account is optional. If there was no first man & first woman, there was no Original Sin- the domino theory would negate the need for Jesus to be our bridge to a right relationship with His Father, a holy God. The Christian faith falls apart. So Catholic? What’s that? Regarding what God thinks about same-sex sexual relationships, we need only read Romans Chapter One.
It’s not often that I can applaud ANY bishop (or priest, for that matter) for having the courage to speak out for godly laws in our society. I applaud Bishop Cordileone for taking this role as LEADER. All to many of our bishops are only figure-heads, liking the “pastoral” role of holding their staffs, and mouthing official statements (attorney-approved) that come down the pike from the USCCB and the Vatican. Empty words uttered by empty headed sponges, many of them. Many little girls have more courage than most bishops, that run scared from their own shadows.
Since the year 1139, when women lost their rightful role in the church as priests wives, we have all male leaders but too few MEN. I think we would have more MEN when we all heed what God wrote about celibacy, “It is not good for man to be alone. I will make him a help-meet.”
And if we Catholics would only read what the Bible says about qualificatiion for those in ordained ministry: “... for if a man cannot manage his own family with dignity, how can he take care of the Church of God?”—Paul wrote that in 1st Timothy and Titus Chapter One, when he was outlining the IDEAL qualifications for ordained ministers = married men.
Our society will lose, and continue to erode, until we have more MEN in leadership, with courage, and with experience so that we pew people will listen to them. I ignore most bishops now. I only listen to the ones that have opinions that square with the Bible, the Word of God.
I agree…empty rhetoric from Cordileone. He has been bishop here now for over 2 years and not one of our problems are solved. This is one of the most, if not THE MOST, liberal diocese in the country, and not one thing has been done to date for correction. The diocesan paper, published under his name, boasts letters to the editor that are rabidly dissident. Churches abound throughout the diocese with practicing gay and/or inside-the-closet gay priests who have no interest in promoting anything authentically ‘Catholic’ in their parishes. Oh, but we DO have a lot of ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’ (code word for ultra-liberal). I would suggest that it would behoove the entire nation and the whole marriage debate to clean up the issues in the diocese. If an entire diocese is faithful to Church teaching (what a concept?!), it would do a lot to promote the teaching on a broader scale. Being in charge of this committee is nothing but a position that makes it look like everything is fine on the home front, while the fox is stealing the hens on a daily basis.
I pray for the success of Bishop Cordileone’s efforts to protect marriage.
If the good bishop is so concerned about marriage then he should get married. Oops! I forgot. He is not allowed to, therefore, he is de facto an expert on marriage! Makes perfect sense . . . Please, good Catholics! Wake up and see the absurdity of this position.
To those who think married priests are the answer for ANYTHING, I recommend studying history and read (Matthew 19:11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”) As well as 1Cor 7:1-17. For two thousand years Holy Mother Church has recognized these passages as referring to celibate priests and Bishops and the church has never, never allowed the ordained to get married, as well married priests were never ordained Bishops. only when there was schism did there be the absurd position of married clergy. As far as a celibate giving advice on marriage, I say it is only when you are close to and understand God well that you can understand marriage because marriage is a sacrament instituted by God. And since many husbands and wives are far away from God, they do not understand marriage.
JM - I agree with you 100%. If St. Peter wanted to enter a seminary today to study for the priesthood, NO seminary would take him. He was married.
To Catholic4good - you quoted, “...and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”
1) Jesus was not referring to qualifications for MEN in ordained ministry. The qualifications are outlined in Paul’s Pastoral Letters to Timothy and Titus. And Paul said he and Barnabas had a RIGHT to marry, like Peter and the other apostles, in 1Corinthians 9:5.
But since you mentioned the “eunuchs”:
2)Are you supporting the castration of ALL priests upon ordination? If you are, then that would be a REAL committment to serve the people of God.
Although, some early church fathers, converts from paganism, for whom the flesh was bad and the spirit was good, DID castrate themselves, and the universal church leaders in those days, condemned the practice. Do you want to bring that ungodly practice back? Chop, chop.
Was it Origen that did that to himself? I believe that’s one reason he was never called “St. Origen”. He’s just Origen. Though Pope Benedict has been quoting Origen a lot lately. I wonder what’s up with that.
Karl,most marriages that are struggling today are struggling because TOO MANY people are stcking their nose where it doesn’t belong. In our diocese the “in” crowd decides whats good and bad, right and wrong, strong and weak. They commit grave sin. Are you part of that? God alone knows the heart of a couple. This is part of the liberal agenda to destroy real marriage and bolster homosexual unions. Not buying it.
Orthodox, If your claims are true it is a sad day for Cathoicism. Satan has truly entered the temple.
Cradle, you have already argued this on other blogs. Peter walked away from everything as did every apostle that followed Him. He asked the rich young man to do the same but He couldn’t. You are trying to justify something that the Church has ruled against for a thousand years. You are just creating new problems, not solving anything. God gives grace and His grace is enough. Why not stick with the topic of the article? May God protect us from all attempts to destroy the true definition of marriage and may those who feel discriminated against come to realize different things are different.
You don’t have to have personal experience with something to give good advice about it. Most doctors haven’t experienced the conditions they treat, and yet we trust them because they’ve devoted their lives to studying them and have more knowledge than we do. Most psychologists haven’t been schizophrenic, or bipolar, or depressed, and yet we trust them to heal us, again because they have studied the conditions and have drawn sound conclusions from their observations.
In fact, in many cases, having a personal experience can actually cloud your judgment when you give advice because you can’t see past your own experience to the broader picture. Someone who has been cheated on repeatedly might draw the conclusion that all men are pigs, which is NOT the advice you would want to give to a roomful of young people asking questions about marriage.
I would say priests have MORE authority to give advice about marriage than individual married people because they have heard hundreds of confessions from husbands and wives and have counseled hundreds of couples and therefore have a much deeper understanding of marriage today than any lay person ever could.
All my prayers for Bishop Cordileone!
Maggiemo85 - The Roman Catholic priesthood ought not be viewed as a PROFESSION. It is a vocation, and the priests and bishops are to serve as our ROLE MODELS for life.
Priests learn in CONFESSION about PROBLEMS with family life, and they have a skewed view of family life, as a result. It’s mostly BAD NEWS. People do not go to Confession to talk about the good parts of family life.
Secondly, what do you say about The Bible that outlines specific qualifications for our ordained ministers? Huh? How can you ignore it?
Why did St. Paul write that ordained ministers be married men, “..for if a man cannot manage his own family with dignity, how can he take care of the Church of God?” - Was Paul talking to a wall? Do you believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, or not?
Please don’t come back with Matthew 19, where Jesus speaks about eunachs, unless you think it’s wise to CASTRATE priests upon ordination. Frankly, if the Vatican continues to DISOBEY the Bible, insisting on celibate priests, then castrating them to ensure they do not have sexual “lapses”, is a great idea. Chop chop. How many takers will there be then?
Ok, I know I going to catch a lot of heat for this but I think we really should back off of the marriage issue.
1. It is not working and will not work. People who are not converted to Christ see no value in denying their sexual impulses. They are not going to unless we do the more important work of introducing them to Christ. It is the the love and holy fear of God that changes people and we need to focus on that.
2. This anti-marriage thing is hurting our evangelistic mission. All we are doing is confirming that we are hateful. Why are we not trying to outlaw divorce? It smells suspicious. More importantly, if people think we are hateful they are not going to listen to anything else we have to say, including to our most important message—-the love and redemption of Christ. The Church’s primary mission is not fixing the social order through public policy but bringing down the kingdom of God by helping each person open her heart to the reign of Christ in herself. Gay marriage fight is taking away much needed time and energy and resources from this important mission. We are putting the cart before the horse—-First the love and lordship of Christ, then Christian morality.
3. Someone complained about the bishop focusing too much on social justice. Well, it depends on what you mean. I happen to not care for much of the public policies promoted by “social justice Catholics.” But if we are taking about feeding the poor, visiting the prisoner, sheltering the homeless, loving our enemies, i.e., following the Gospels, then we need to spend more not less time doing that.
The world will know us by our love, and if they see us loving them, they might be interested in what we are peddling, and remember all we are really peddling is Jesus, everything else, is secondary.
Peace,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
To Cradle Catholic: anyone with even a little Catholic sense would know that Jesus’ reference to eunuchs did not include castration, but he was referring to celibacy of his clergy.
What a wonderful thing is our Church, and we have, for the past hundred years or so, the most wonderful Popes. And since it was Jesus who said “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16) he was speaking about the Apostles and their successors.
The bishop of Rome, successor of St. Peter, chief of the whole Church, and the Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings “on priestly celibacy leave no room for doubt” about its validity and foundation, he said. In his Post-Synod Apostolic Exhortation, “Sacramentum caritatis” in 2007, the Pope called celibacy “an inestimable treasure.”
The Pope wrote: “The fact that Christ himself, the eternal priest, lived his mission even to the sacrifice of the Cross in the state of virginity constitutes the sure point of reference for understanding the meaning of the tradition of the Latin Church.”
“Celibacy is really a special way of conforming oneself to Christ’s own way of life,” he added.
“In continuing with the great ecclesial tradition, with the Second Vatican Council and with my predecessors in the papacy, I reaffirm the beauty and the importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God, and I therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition.”
“Priestly celibacy lived with maturity, joy and dedication is an immense blessing for the Church and for society itself,” the Pontiff said.
To anyone that can answer this: What does “those that are rendered incapable of marriage by others” mean? - it is in Matthew 19.
Catholic4good, you only quote the Popes in your post. You are not quoting specific verses in Scripture that apply to the ordained ministry.
Why do you even use Scripture as a source? Just forget the Bible, if you are going to take verses out of context. Stick with popes.
Carolyn Hyppolite- as a rule, I agree w/ what you write. But I disagree with you on this point. “The Church” is to be salt and light in the world. It is not hateful to speak out for Gospel truths. A quick read of Romans Chapter One tells us that same-sex sexual activity is wrong. What is at stake is the health of our society.
At the risk of appearing “hateful”, our grammar school kids are being taught in public schools that same-sex unions are just another good option. It is not. Children need a mother and a father. The first thing God said was NOT good was when Adam was alone.
Thus, I applaud Bishop C for stepping to the plate, and calling for God-honoring laws in his state, and for encouraging marriage. He’d be wise to also push for his “brother-priests” to be able to marry, and have families, and to serve as examples for the rest of us pew people, and in society in general.
Cradle Catholic,
I am not at all suggesting that same-sex marriage is good, but lots of things in the world are not good. In fact, I think there are plenty worst things in the world that Christians find it in their hearts to ignore.
I am not sure that we ought to be salt and light means that we ought to spent millions of dollars trying to influence public policy. As for God honoring laws, this is not a theocracy, and the non-Christians should not have Christian laws forced upon them. We would not like it if we lived in a muslim majority country and they made us wear burquas. And this is not even a majority Christian country, by any meaningful sense of the word. Less than half of Americans are Church members! And it goes down hill from there.
And if we were going to pass God-honoring laws, we should start with enforcing Church attendance. After all, worshiping God is the end of the human person. How can a society honor God that does not even worship God? And if it the family we are really worried about, we should next try to ban no fault divorce and certainly divorce and remarriage. These things are far more destructive to the family than gay marriage. That we have never made any attempt to do any of these things, particularly on the marriage end but instead spend the lionshare of our energy on a sexual minority makes us look bias. Were are the bold condemnations of divorce? Were are the Prop 8’s against divorce?
More importantly, I think law and coercion are not Christians tools of evangelization. We evangelize the world by changing hearts and by first and foremost bringing people to Christ.
Having been a non-believer, I can attest that Christian sexual morality makes little sense to non-Christians. The world’s sexual ethics is put on a condom and have a good time, and if you say condoms don’t work, well, that only tells the world to make better condoms.
As for children in public schools, at the risk of sounding insensitive, Christians should do everything possible to take their children out of those insitutions. If we are going to get excited about public policy, I suggest vouchers or tax deductions for people using private schools or homeschooling. As for the other children, they are going to be influenced by their homes and their culture and those winds are not moving in our directions. We should love the people in the world, pray for the world, prophesy to the world but we should not force the world, that is not the New Testament way. We save society the Mother Theresa way, one person at a time, loving them and showing them the light of Christ. Christ does not seek to rule in the halls of congress but in the human heart.
Peace,
CKH
Cradle Catholic, WHO is taking Scripture out of context, me or you? Remember it is Jesus, GOD, who gives our Holy Father the gift of infallibility and the Grace of the Holy Spirit (ie. Wisdom, Knowledge and Understanding) more than anyone else, just read Matthew 16:16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17. And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Study your history, the context here has, for two thousand years, been interpreted to refer to Peter and ALL his successors. So if you want to refuse to accept our Holy Father then you refuse to accept God.
Carolyn, Why do you say that nothing is being done to fight divorce and remarriage? Alot is being done. And pulling kids from public schools is not necessarily the answer since homosexual couples are trying to send their kids to Catholic schools. Some teaching is clear. Some people feel clarity is cruel or insensitive. I think this is the crux of the problem, not defending the truth.
I did not say that nothing was being done about divorce but we have made no attempt to outlaw divorce. I don’t think the controversy is about the church being clear but about the church spending lots of time and energy and money trying to influence legislation.
I am certainly approving of the church being clear about her position but I am not sure why that is necessary. Does anyone not know the church’s position about this?
As for gay parents putting the kids in Catholics schools, I don’t think that is a problem either. Some bishops like the one in Boston have a welcoming policy, I think that is the way to go. If we are going to not welcome children because their parents are sinners, we might as well close our doors. Or at the very least, we should be fair about it by not allowing the children or cohabitating couples and hetersexual couples in illicit circumstances.
Within the Catholic school setting, we still have the right to teach the faith.
Peace in christ,
CKH
carolynhyppolite.blogspot.com
Carolyn, We disagree. Archbishop Chaput had it right. He reitterated Church teaching. In this misguided compassion many souls are lost. Both parents living in open opposition to Church teaching aren’t your ordinary sinner. They are in open rebellion to Church teaching and live it in front of the prosepective student every day. If other parents are in open opposition to Church teaching they shouldn’t be sending children to the school either. But this is so clearly in opposition. The school is a place to build and strengthen faith, not undermine it. When the parents want to be involved in the school and confuse and obfusc the teaching great damage is done. If the motive for sending a child there is not pure (and it would be hard to be pure in these circumstances), the damage could be devastating. The lifestyle ignores or denies the ability of Christ to overcome all sin. It denies the cross. It presumes on God’s mercy. And on and on. Archbishop O’Malley divided the Church not upholding his brother who had face the same situation a month before.
I will bet my life that the good bishop has issued 10x more phony annulments per year than there will be gay marriages per year in his diocese. Gay marriage is an inconsequential attack on the long abandoned institution of marriage. The US bishops have been actively collaborating with the divorce industry for 40 years in issuing patently phony annulments to echo the no-fault divorces issued by the divorce industry. The Holy Father has repeatedly raised concerns with the US annulment tribunals “simulating” a judicial process while systemically abusing defenders of their marriage vows. For more information and mountains of evidence proving the US bishops’ disdain for traditional marriage, please visit http://www.MarysAdvocates.org You c.an also submit testimony of your experiences with the US annulment tribunals.
The Church has made a cruel mockery of Catholic marriage with their abusive use of junk psychology, specifically the Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM), to declare valid marriages as invalid. Perhaps we should give the bishops a taste of their own poison. I am sure we would find no shortage of psychological “experts” who would find that Mr. Cordileone’s opposition to gay marriage is homophobic and evidence of a grave delusional disorder or a personality disorder according to the DSM. Given this, I am morally certain that Mr. Cordileone was never able to consent to or commit to his priestly vows because of this grave psychological impediment. Therefore, he should be defrocked from the priesthood but I am not judging him. There is no judgment involved. Sometimes people attempt to be ordained as priests with the best of intentions but they may have been impeded in their capacity to fulfill that vocation because of delusional disorders or personality disorders, such as homophobia. Obviously Mr. Cordileone attended an ordination ceremony but this did not mean that he became a priest. There are a lot of myths or confusion around defrocking a priest that I would like to clarify for Mr. Cordileone. The fact that he should be defrocked will have no effect on his legal standing under civil law with respect to collecting his pension benefits. Have said all that, it is time for Mr. Cordileone to accept that he never had a sacramental relationship with Mother Church and move on. We wish him the best with his future endeavors.
All sarcastic comments aside, I cannot stand the white-tombed hypocrisy of US bishops on same-sex marriage. Please bishop Cordileone clean up your own “marriage” tribunals and protect traditional marriage where it is completely within your power and it is your duty to do so. Until such time, please remain silent about homosexual marriage unless you like empty theatrics (which might be further evidence of a hysterical disorder).
1. Catholics who are divorced are not excommunicated. They are simply not free to marry again unless the first marriage is annulled.
2. Priests listen to and counsel hundreds, even thousands of married couples about their marriages, a solid basis for knowledge on the subject.
3. Bishop Cordelione is right on about the purpose of marriage to provide for the best possible upraising of children.
4. Marriage is what it is - “Re-defining” it is what is absurd.
5. Acceptance of other unions as equivalent to marriage is a threat to religious liberty, since I am sure that churches and Christian businesses would be required to treat members of those unions the same as married couples. Treating different things differently is NOT discrimination.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.