SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — The Catholic Conference of Illinois disapproved of the state Senate’s passage of a bill that would redefine marriage to include the union of same-sex persons, citing religious-liberty concerns.
“This legislation callously redefines a bedrock institution of our society and deteriorates the free exercise of religion in our state,” Catholic Conference of Illinois executive director Robert Gilligan said Feb. 14.
“We remain wary of government interference in the Church’s ministry and structure.”
On Feb. 14, the Illinois Senate approved a bill that would change the state’s definition of marriage from being “between a man and a woman” to “between two persons.” It was passed 34-21, and it now faces a vote in the state House.
Gilligan said the bill ignores the natural order of marriage, the complementarity of the sexes that is a foundation for families.
“Marriage joins a man and a woman in love to meet one another’s needs, to procreate and to raise children. This is the lifeblood of any human society,” Gilligan wrote. “This legislation tears at that definition with unknown consequences.”
The Catholic Church teaches that authentic marriage involves only one man and one woman. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, “The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution, despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes” (1603).
In an address in June 2009, Pope Benedict XVI stated, “The different present forms of the dissolution of marriage, as well as free unions and ‘trial marriage,’ including the pseudo-marriage between persons of the same sex, are … contrary expressions of an anarchic freedom that appears erroneously as man’s authentic liberation.”
Religious-Liberty Concerns
The Church in Illinois is concerned about religious liberty under the bill. The conscience protections in the bill are limited for institutions and non-existent for persons.
Although the legislation says it would not force any religious denomination or minister to “solemnize any marriage,” Gilligan warned of “promises” made “two years ago when civil unions were passed, and now Catholic Charities has been kicked out of its mission of serving children in foster care.”
Even though the Church received assurances its social services would not be affected, within six months of the passage of civil unions in the state, Catholic Charities adoption services was barred from working with the state.
While Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn has already pledged to sign the bill should it arrive on his desk, its fate in the House is unsure. Even though it too is controlled by Democrats who support the bill, it is expected to face tougher opposition in that chamber.
Some Democratic African-American representatives may oppose the bill because of its criticism by black Christian pastors.
The same day as the state Senate vote, Democratic legislators in both chambers introduced measures that would amend Illinois’ Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
William Haine, a pro-life Democratic senator who is Catholic, said the same-sex "marriage" bill is being pushed through “on the basis of emotion” and fails to protect churches from discrimination for their views.
Comments
Post a Comment
How does an institution get freedom of religion protection under the constitution, but not an individual? The Bill of Rights is all guaranteed individual protection.
when GOD, in the beginning, created man, he made him subject to his own free choice. If you choose you can keep the commandments; it is loyalty to do GODS will. There are set before you fire and water; to whichever you choose, stretch forth your hand. Before man are life and death, whichever he chooses shall be given to him. There is and never will be in the eyes of GOD, two men or two women married. These people are living in SIN peroid. We all must die one day, and make ourselves, accountaboe to our Lord Jesus Christ. May Jesus have mercy on us for our sins.
The legalization of same-s ex marriage in Illinois in no way “deteriorates” freedom of religion or “interferes” witht he ministyr of the RCC. This statute is purely civil. The RCC and all other churches remian free to not marry same-sex couples. The bishops overplay their hand and make themselves look silly with such patently false statements.
Catholic Charities has not been “kicked out” of anything. As the courts in IL have held, no organization ahs the right to receive government contracts. If the RCC does not want to abide by the rules in state contracts, then rightly, Catholic Charites should not receive public, taxpayer funds. Catholic charities in Illinois is free to fund its adoption services with private funding.
I can imagine reasons why this article did not, but I think it important to point out the results of the senate vote. Of the forty senate Democrats, only three voted “Nay.” Of the nineteen senate Republicans, only one voted “Yea.” Draw your own conclusion.
Lisa,
If the government discriminates against the Catholic Church for a contract because of the church’s non-openness to gay marriage, then this can be litigated in court and the government will be found wrong because of discrimnation on the basis of religion. If the government is making contracts with non-catholic groups then this is also evidence of favoring one religion over another.
I think the best answer is that the Federal government shouldn’t be negotiating contracts period since this is by the Consitution reserved to the States.
Lisa Kaiser wrote,
But not in Massachusetts: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
and if the federal government decides to get involved and make sure that all states treat marriage equally like it stepped in to make sure they all treat health care equally, which way do you think it’s going to lean regarding religious freedom, when in the case of health care it took the most restrictive state statutes and went with something even stricter?
Lisa, I have to ask. Why do you think that Illinois’ law would be a good thing?
Lisa,
The children suffer.
These political contentions on same-sex “marriages” and “unions” are caused both by and result in Catholics being called hateful bigots who are trying to harm gays by imposing their will on them and denying them their “rights”. We are witnessing satanic warfare, big-time. Because of our failure, strong and concerted decisions have been made against God’s plan for us and our country. The contention has reached a serious block in communication.
Granting homosexuals “pseudo-marriage” status will in effect twist the tables on morality, making the Truth of Christ false in the eyes of the law and society, as it artificially imposes an edict NOT to marginalize or ridicule gay “choice”. It follows that Catholics - who wish to marginalize and ridicule no one - are spitefully rejected for wanting to see the best for gays. Acts of good will to protect them from marginalization and pseudo-love and to show them environments where they can enjoy God’s true happiness will be treated as acts of hatred. This is the subliminal part of the legal edict that Americans will be expected to follow. Catholics whose actions appear to be against gay “choice” are the ones being attacked.
Here are some things we Catholics can think about doing to turn this around:
1. Pray to St. Michael the Archangel and the Good Angels to defend us in the battle against satan. Pray for the intercession of all the Saints and Holy Mary, and to Joseph, the Protector of the Church. Pray to the Holy Trinity that we may follow the will of God.
2. Stop blessing homosexual “same-sex attractions”. This is counter-productive and misguided, and should no longer be publicly condoned. A same-sex couple pursuing homosexual attractions ends up in homosexual sex acts and living arrangements which lead to same-sex “unions” and “marriages”.
3. Consider the part of the cause/response of the legislative decision that addresses the fact that non-Catholics believe we are CAUSING HARM to homosexuals and denying them their “rights”. The Church needs to publicly explain our beliefs that God’s extraordinary love shown in the marital sex act is like no other, and that this is what Catholics want gays to understand. Conjugal love within heterosexual marriage is truly fulfilling marital love. Anything else (adultery, homosexual sex, fornication, masturbation, etc.) is only partially fulfilling “pseudo-sex” which CAN NEVER bring true happiness because it does not follow God’s natural law.
Also, for Catholics, sanctioning same-sex marriage or unions would be acts of disrespect to gays, as if saying they “deserve” it. The whole Truth, for Catholics (whose religion is the only one founded by Christ Himself) is that pretend marriages are an insult to human dignity - especially for gays. We do not want to be a part of imposing below-standard happiness on anyone. Explain that what those outside the Church see as “rights”, the Church sees as restrictions which deny someone the opportunity to be in God’s grace and to make their life acceptable to God. The Church is against establishing a “right” that denies gays freedom.
4. Consider the part of the cause/response of the legislative decision that addresses the fact that non-Catholics believe those against these “unions” and “marriages” are HATEFUL BIGOTS. We need to look within ourselves (an examination of conscience) and recall the times we have been hurt by associations with gays. For instance, the times when we were treated with disdain by them because we are Catholic. Also, recall the times we were devastated by the fact that priests are dying of AIDS, and recall the most horrible, vicious spirit of evil we knew had attacked them, and the people involved. Remember how we felt when we contemplated this spirit in our very soul - it is the same spirit that seductively urges people to sodomy and deadly disease and the seeks the death of the Church. Do not feel sad, embarrassed, or weak because that is what satan wants to see from you. Just know the spirit you are up against and hate it.
To have a good argument for Catholicism, throw away any thoughts of hatred against persons that you may have. I am not saying you have any of this, but just know that your soul is clean from any thoughts that you dislike anyone. Let it be known publicly that not like an earthly judge, whose criminals would see punishment against homosexuals, the Church wants to impose love instead. We need to explain that we wish the best for all of God’s people, not separating out anyone or giving some more love than others. Explain that these are basic Catholic beliefs, flowing from the Holy Trinity – the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – that are indelible and universal. Let it be known publicly that our God is all-loving and forgiving, and that He wants to help us all be the very best on earth so that when we die, we can see His face in the splendor of Heaven. He wants everyone to experience His very best blessings here on earth and has taught us these things through the Church.
“The Bill of Rights is all guaranteed individual protection.”
Exactly. Even for homosexuals. They have freedom if religion too including his/her own church’s or civil authority’s definition.
While some are concerned about a baker having to put “congratulations Bill and Tom” out of religious conscience Bill and Tom would have to sacrifice the very thing the Catholic church says is the bedrock of society. So because of one church an entire class of people can’t have that same freedom to participate in society or even just have a family.
Is the Catholic church really getting a worse deal than any homosexual who the church defines as “intrinsically disordered” and having forsaken his/her “humanity” according to the Pope’s Christmas address for peace.
Does a church really have a right to define someone in such a way and then have the “bedrock of society” exclude them based on such a definition?
One can define anyone they way one wants but the constitution defines all of us equally and public policy cannot favor one church when it comes to basic human rights.
Every one of the concerns stated by the Catholic Conference of Illinois pales in comparison to what any homosexual experiences every minute of every day. They may want to corner a definition of marriage but they cannot define the individual in public policy outside the realm of the constitution.
They want religious freedom but it applies to all-even homosexuals.
It should be pointed out that the argument that Catholic adoption agencies, schools, hospitals and other ministries receive government funds so imposing regulations on them that violate their conscience is justified will eventually go away: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/benedicts-coming-revolution-over-state-funded-catholic-charity
Jeff,
the Catholic Charities contract withthe State if illinois had nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The state contracts with various charities/ non-profit organizations re adoption services. The rule for ANY organization to be a state contractor for those services concerned same-sex couples being able to adopt children. Catholic Charities said it would not abide by that rule. So the state did not renew the contract for Catholic Charitis. So discrinmation against the RCC or Catholci Cahrities was NOT an issue. What Catholic Charities wanted was special treatment and the ability to not have to abide by the rules that other organizations that received this contract had to abide by. The state coursts in Illinoise correctly held that no organization is entitled to receive state contracts—especially if the organization was not going to abide by the rules of the contract. Catholic Charities iremains free to finance adoption servicew with private funds and it remains free to NOT allow same-sex couple to adopt through it.
Also, Jeff the contract in question was a STATE contract, NOT a federal contract. And you are inocorrect re contract law. It is perfectly contitituional for the federal government to negotiate contracts—it does so all the time. It negotiates contracts with all kinds of vendors for alls sorts of services—for the military and for every federal agency. In addition, the federal government provides many services to state, local and tribal goverments via contracts. I am a grant administrator ofr a tribal government, ans we have many contracts with the federal government for all sorts of services.
Kevin Rahe,
ALL American citizens are entitled to equal protection under the alw via the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Laws that protect the equal rights of American citizens are a bedrock of our American way of life. dicrimination, and bigotry are anti-American
Lisa, the 14th Amendment argument doesn’t really fly, because objectively no one of a particular gender is prohibited from doing what anyone else of that gender is free to do.
Kevin Rahe,
You are engaging in magical/wishful thinking. You are buyung into illogical and innacurate RC propoaganda. No non-profit, no RC organization is ENTITLED to recieve taxpayer funds or government contracts. They are NOT entitled not abide by the rules other organizations must abide by in order to receive state/federal funds. If the RC organizations do want to abide by the rules for recerving such money, they should not receive it. That is NOT imposing any sort of regulation on the RC organization. RC organizations are always free to provide their service with private funds. No organization, RC or or not, has a right to receive taxpayer money.
Kevin Rahe,
As an attorney, I call you that you are completely wrong about the 14th Amemdment. In addition, the cases re same-sex marriage coming before the US Supreme Court in late March are based upon the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. Apparently, the 9 Justices of the US Supreme Court who agreed to hear these cases this term understand that the issue of same-sex marriage is a 14th Amendment issue. The 9 Justices of the US Supreme Court will be surprised to to find out that you think they are wrong. You better hurry up and tell them before they make any more mistakes of this nature! I am sure they want to receive a good legal education from you.
Lisa,
You still haven’t answered my initial question to you, nor have you attempted to refute what I said regarding anyone’s 14th Amendment rights being violated. I am not an attorney per se, but just last week a judge in a case I was involved in commented that if I could put a bar number after my name, no one would second guess it.
re: Catholic Church receiving state/federal funds
We are in agreement on the matter of religious organizations being entitled to receive taxpayer funds - they are not. But you are ignoring that in the case of Illinois Catholic adoption agencies, adequate religious exemptions are actually part of the law. It is just that those enforcing the law are ignoring them. That is one reason why over the long term Catholic organizations will be cutting their ties to government, as indicated in the link I posted earlier. Though it is not true that “RC organizations are always free to provide their service with private funds,” which is readily refuted by the case of Massachusetts adoption agencies.
Joe Yungk said,
Bill and Tom not having something that it’s impossible for them to have is not a sacrifice, at least not one imposed by anyone but themselves.
There is nothing in the Constitution that suggests that a man can be a mother or that a woman can be a parent without the involvement of a man, so its notion of “equal” is clearly something quite different than yours.
The Roman Catholic Church simply chooses to recognize the only definition of marriage that is common to practically every place and time throughout history. It’s quite reasonable for a government to do the same.
Here is another good example of the disorder and tyranny against the majority that results when we allow the exception to become the rule:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/students-who-refuse-to-affirm-transgender-classmates-face-punishment.html
Kevin Rahe,
First: the rights of all humn beings are rights and are not subject to any majority.
Second: The majority of Americand DO believe in marriage equality, do support the legalization of same-sex marriage. So your “tyranny” and “disorder” arguemnt is patently false. Heck, even Newt Gingrich admits that the majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.
Third: If Fox News is your source of information and the shaper of your thoughts and opinion, then you are truly lost! Fox News is for the gullible and the unintelligent. Its a bunch of old angry white guys (the same clueless minority that lost the last presidential election, the same guys who refused to bleive tht Obama took Ohio on Nov 6th) who are upset that the fictions they try to promote as fact is alwasy exposed for the BS that it is and is not accepted by the smart people who actually vote and run the country.
If you want reliable news and opinions, may I suggest, NPR, the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington, the New yorker, CNN, etc—sources of news that smart people go to for facts and reliable information.
“nothing in the Constitution that suggests that a man can be a mother or that a woman can be a parent without the involvement of a man”
now that’s just a nonsensical statement. My point is that a church has no right to define an individual as disordered toward evil.
As far as your church’s definition of marriage goes you can follow that all you want. but being what your church says it is negates the religious freedom of those whom do not follow that limitation. Just because your church says so does not make it law. It makes it a denial of someone else’ liberty.
Trust me gays have lost more than you can ever (or choose to ever) imagine.
I can’t get to the fox news thing. flash player problems I think. but would you like to know what it is like for the gay kid when the straight ones hear the teachings about homosexuality?
“Bill and Tom not having something that it’s impossible for them to have is not a sacrifice, at least not one imposed by anyone but themselves.”
are you saying that their same-sex attraction is “self imposed?”
this is why you do not get to write policy on others’ personal lives. You have absolutely no understanding of what you are expecting of others. And it is based entirely on your church yet doesn’t even follow the church’s teachings.
Lisa Kaiser wrote,
Including the right to practice one’s faith? How about the right to have your child’s innocence protected?
Even if the majority of Americans do think that “marriage equality” (which is actually more like marriage deconstruction) sounds like a good thing, I don’t think that automatically means that the majority of mothers and fathers think it’s just fine for boys to go in the girls bathroom with their school-age daughters, and that their daughters should be punished if they complain about it.
I get most of my news from a web site that hosts most of the local newspapers in my home state, a printed local paper, foxnews.com, USA Today (print edition) and of course ncregister.com. Not only would I suggest that my news sources cover a wider political and social spectrum than yours, but I couldn’t find this particular story on any of the news web sites you cited. How can you call people “smart” who rely on news sources that don’t publish all the news? Just to follow this story further, it does at least appear that some Massachusetts lawmakers have their head screwed on straight and are working to remedy this travesty of reason:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/lawmakers-act-to-protect-children-from-transgender-bathrooms.html
Joe Yungk wrote,
That may be, but the problem with making the world “right” in their eyes is that it makes it wrong for everyone else.
No, their same-sex attraction is a true tragedy, especially if they desire to have a family of their own. The sacrifice they’ve chosen to make is entering a same-sex relationship that cannot produce children.
I’ll not feel sorry that my life is not “right” for you. It is my life. Not yours. Nobody is asking you to live my life or even have anything to do with it per my own constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
You don’t show any understanding of the limited choices we have.
Why are the bishops protesting? Did they not know that 50 years of laxity on their part in teaching the Catholic Faith would result in this? What is it that they do not understand? It’s their own fault and now they’re crying boo hoo and we’re all supposed to stand behind them, where formerly we (the laity) were trying to tell the bishops to stop promoting homosexuality!
What this is all about is changing the norms of society to legitimize a desire for same sex relations. I do feel sorry for people who are stuck with a same sex attraction through no fault of their own. But that does not mean we should all accept and bless these relations, which amounts to condoning sodomy. Stop and think about this: sodomy involves sexual organs and body parts being used in ways they were not designed for - often with terrible results. People are harming themselves and we’re supposed to embrace this? The homosexual activists posting on this web site would prefer we don’t think too hard about this. There is nothing beautiful or natural about sodomy. No amount twisting the truth can ever erase this. Sodomy is dirty and does not deserve to be celebrated with the sacrament of marriage in front of the altar and God.
This subject is, in many ways, like abortion. Everything is fine from a view of 40,000 feet. But once you zoom in close to examine what’s really going on, you become sick to your stomach and the whole farsical argument for same sex marriage can be seen for what it is: a lie.
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.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.