Bishop Blase Cupich of Spokane, Wash., urged Catholics to demonstrate respect for individuals with same-sex attraction, while supporting the authentic definition of marriage in an upcoming referendum.
“My genuine hope is that we all can value the coming vote on Referendum 74 as an opportunity to have a substantial public debate regarding this critical issue, carried on with respect, honesty and conviction,” Bishop Cupich wrote in an Aug. 3 letter made available to parishioners in his diocese.
In November 2012, Washingtonians will vote to approve or reject the state law redefining marriage to include same-sex couples.
Bishop Cupich asked Catholics to give “careful consideration” to a set of reflections on the reasons for opposing a change in the meaning of marriage.
“I offer these thoughts with respect, but also out of a sense of duty to contribute to the debate for the good of our state,” the bishop noted.
“But I also want to be very clear that in stating our position the Catholic Church has no tolerance for the misuse of this moment to incite hostility towards homosexual persons or promote an agenda that is hateful and disrespectful of their human dignity.”
Bishop Cupich acknowledged the passionate nature of many people's convictions on the question of marriage, as he encouraged people on both sides of the debate to conduct themselves with respect.
He urged proponents of same-sex "marriage” to give serious consideration to the arguments of its opponents, who “have sincere concerns about what a redefinition of marriage will mean for the good of society and the family, both of which face new strains in our modern world.”
Those who oppose the redefinition of marriage “are asking the public to take a serious and dispassionate look at what a radical break with centuries of marriage law and practice will mean,” the Spokane bishop explained.
In his own reflections on the referendum, Bishop Cupich stressed that the law should continue to acknowledge “sexual difference and its potential to create new life.”
“If there is anything we have come to appreciate and value more fully in this modern age, it is that men and women are not the same,” the bishop observed. “That is true not only biologically, but on so many other levels. Men and women are not interchangeable.”
While the two sexes are equal in dignity, “they each bring something of their difference to complement each other.” This union is given a special standing in law, as the only institution that unites a man and woman with one another and any children born of their union.
“The decision to unhinge marriage from its original grounding in our biological life should not be taken lightly,” Bishop Cupich warned, “for there are some things enacted law is not capable of changing.”
“Thoughtful consideration should be given to the significant consequences such unhinging will mean for children, families, society and the common good.”
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
“Thoughtful consideration should be given to the significant consequences such unhinging will mean for children, families, society and the common good.”
OK, let’s do that Bishop, provide specific “consequences” to the common good for example that have arisen in MA as a direct result of nearly ten years of marriage equality.
Thank you for this thoughtful look at the issue of redefining marriage. With much prayer and reflection, I have come to see the need for both truth and compassion in discussing this. In truth, biology determines that a sexual union between a man and a woman uniquely has the possibility of producing children, and because we as a society value the importance of providing a loving and stable environment for raising the children produced by these unions, we have a vested interest in promoting marriage between a man and a woman. On the other hand, there exist in our society many people who are involved in loving, committed relationships. These are not just homosexual couples. In my own experience, I have known widows who were friends that have formed a household together after the deaths of their husbands, adult siblings who have formed households together, divorcees who have combined households to raise their children, a single woman who formed a household with an older widow and took care of the older woman until her death. Are these relationships any less worthy of many of the rights that homosexual couples are looking for, just because they are not sexually active relationships? Would it make sense to label all of these relationships as “marriages” because they fit a new definition for marriage? It would seem there are many benefits that should be available to anyone in a committed, loving relationship, such as hospital visitations, possibly filing joint taxes, inheriting property, just to name a few. Perhaps we need to find a way to promote rights for anyone in a committed loving relationships regardless of sexual orientation or activity, and continue to promote marriage as a commitment and responsibility between a man and a woman to love each other and to provide a loving and stable environment for raising the children they produce.
The human soul is endowed with a wonderfully-made body, an intelligent mind and a discerning spirit which has the capacity to love. This is how we are regardless of our faults and weaknesses. However, there is one factor in our nature that divides us into two distinct groups. This factor - gender - has avery meaningful reason for its existence - which no scientist, social engineer or politician can deny. Specific organs, which beautifully complement each other, are associated with these genders. Because of this, the coming together of two people from the two genders bring about a marriage. This marriage is a human phenomenon which provides the community with stability and, yes, continuity. This is why it is unique amongst all kinds of lovingrelationships we have. And this is why this relationship is celebrated communally all over the world - China, India, Italy, Uganda etc. States recognize marriage and religions bless bless them. Not only is it a phenomenon of our nature but, as Christians, we we have a declaration from Jesus when he was asked a question relating to marriage. He said that it was for this - marriage - that God made us Male and Female. How could Christians contradict or defy our Lord? Ploliticians and judges did not create this marriage and so they have no right to fiddle with it. Ant attack, no matter how minor, on this human phenomenon is an attact on the human community. This applies to lawmakers and to the voters.
The Federal government, starting with the anti-Christian in the White House, praising and codying the immoral act of sodomy has gotten us where we are at now with this attempt to destroy the family unit.
God, who loves us and created us, knows what is best and desires our highest good. His dealings toward us are always loving, good and perfect. He designed marriage to be between a man and woman alone and sexual intimacy to be within those bounds. He designed the family unit so children can grow and flourish and be all they are created to be.
God’s order and design for marriage stands regardless of a state or federal law that would decree otherwise. We cannot have God’s blessing on our lives or on our state or nation if we choose to do what is opposed to His will. Only a spiritual awakening will save this country from the terrible swift sword of our Lord and Savior. He will not be mocked.
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.