You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Bishop Paprocki Speaks Out Against Illinois Senate Vote Approving Same-Sex Unions
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Man
Guest
The Catholic faith would not affirm gay couples as roughly equivalent to marriage. Indeed, I could conclude that such a legal solution could be necessary for certain living situations that require things like power of attorney, without the need to call it any kind of union. The sexual connotation is completely against Catholic teaching.“If the Governor wishes to pursue a secular agenda for political purposes, that is his prerogative, for which he is accountable to the voters,” said Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., after the contentious vote.
More…
Maybe this can be changed with the next government.
M
Man
Guest
Any different type of relationship contract would, sadly, lend itself to abuse by gays, seeming to affirm them, and so would be unacceptable.
A
a_cermak
Guest
This law is actually pretty unique in that it also offers opposite gender civil unions as well. So any two people, 18 or older, not otherwise in a marriage or civil union and not related within a certain degree is able to form a civil union.
It could be the elderly will form a significant part of the civil unions in IL as they could protect their union’s rights but also still qualify for survivor’s benefits. A lot of elderly have private religious ceremonies to mark their unions right now without the law being involved in order to safeguard those benefits.
Cardinal George (and when talking of IL he’s the Big Kahuna of the Catholic Church with maybe the Bishop of Joliet Diocese being next) lobbied hard for this law, called lawmakers personally, multiple times in fact. But he was hobbled by the fact that he really didn’t have the votes to go along with his position. The Cardinal’s political voice is only as strong as the number of votes he can bring along with himself. In this case, polls showing that 60%+ of Catholics supported civil unions or gay marriage meant that his hand was weakened. He lost on the death penalty lobbying too (not that it really matters, IL won’t have another execution for at least 4 more years and by then it will have been around 20 years since the last execution), for largely the same reason.
It could be the elderly will form a significant part of the civil unions in IL as they could protect their union’s rights but also still qualify for survivor’s benefits. A lot of elderly have private religious ceremonies to mark their unions right now without the law being involved in order to safeguard those benefits.
Cardinal George (and when talking of IL he’s the Big Kahuna of the Catholic Church with maybe the Bishop of Joliet Diocese being next) lobbied hard for this law, called lawmakers personally, multiple times in fact. But he was hobbled by the fact that he really didn’t have the votes to go along with his position. The Cardinal’s political voice is only as strong as the number of votes he can bring along with himself. In this case, polls showing that 60%+ of Catholics supported civil unions or gay marriage meant that his hand was weakened. He lost on the death penalty lobbying too (not that it really matters, IL won’t have another execution for at least 4 more years and by then it will have been around 20 years since the last execution), for largely the same reason.
E
etspiri2sanctus
Guest
Please clarify what you have said? Are you saying Cardinal George lobbied for HB 1716? The following is the information I have seen.This law is actually pretty unique in that it also offers opposite gender civil unions as well. So any two people, 18 or older, not otherwise in a marriage or civil union and not related within a certain degree is able to form a civil union.
It could be the elderly will form a significant part of the civil unions in IL as they could protect their union’s rights but also still qualify for survivor’s benefits. A lot of elderly have private religious ceremonies to mark their unions right now without the law being involved in order to safeguard those benefits.
Cardinal George (and when talking of IL he’s the Big Kahuna of the Catholic Church with maybe the Bishop of Joliet Diocese being next) lobbied hard for this law, called lawmakers personally, multiple times in fact. But he was hobbled by the fact that he really didn’t have the votes to go along with his position. The Cardinal’s political voice is only as strong as the number of votes he can bring along with himself. In this case, polls showing that 60%+ of Catholics supported civil unions or gay marriage meant that his hand was weakened. He lost on the death penalty lobbying too (not that it really matters, IL won’t have another execution for at least 4 more years and by then it will have been around 20 years since the last execution), for largely the same reason.
E
etspiri2sanctus
Guest
Continued from above.
Following is the press release from the Catholic Conference of Illinois on behalf of Cardinal Francis George.We are urged to make calls to our State Reps and Senators – Message: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT: Robert Gilligan , Director Catholic Conference of Illinois
November 22, 2010 312-368-1066
catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/CivilUnionsSB1716PressRelease-112210.pdf
The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI), on behalf of Cardinal Francis George, OMI, and all the Bishops of Illinois, call upon the Illinois General Assembly to reject Senate Bill 1716, the civil union legislation.
“Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage. Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage,” said Cardinal George. “Moreover, the impact of this legislation on the Church’s social service ministries remains an important and thus far unanswered concern. This important legislation is being put before a lame-duck General Assembly and more should be done to engage the people in public debate.”
Marriage was not invented by either the state or the Church, and neither can change its nature. However, laws structure society, and they influence patterns of behavior and thought. In our country, as in most others, marriage is granted unique protections and benefits under the law because marriage is the foundation of family and society. The proposed legislation would further weaken an already fragile institution.
There is an inherent conflict between this legislation and religious liberty. Language in the bill offers little protection in the context of litigation that religious institutions and individuals will face if this bill is adopted. With no explicit protections for religious liberties, it will not take long before the General Assembly or the courts:
Mandate that faith-based institutions providing adoption or foster care services be required to place adoptive or foster children with couples who have entered into a same-sex civil union.
Require that Catholic parishes or Catholic agencies providing social services (including retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior care centers and community centers) be compelled to provide these services to individuals who are in a same-sex civil union.
Refuse to protect small employers who do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in a same sex civil union.
The enactment of marriage-like benefits in civil union legislation will intensify the legal attack on marriage. It will not appease those who wish to redefine the institution of marriage. We need only look to California, Connecticut and other states where nearly identical legislation was passed. In every state where citizens have had the right to vote on marriage, they consistently express their support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the “legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits” of marriage to individuals in a civil union. There are literally hundreds of references to married “spouses” throughout Illinois’ law to which parties to a civil union will now be included. These references are not limited to hospital visitation rights (which are already afforded same sex couples via Presidential Executive Order) or property rights (which can be provided for through legal arrangements). They include benefits from the state Pension Code, the legal guardianship of children and other provisions that govern married life in Illinois.The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Accordingly, we stand ready to work with the legislature and other agencies of state government to prevent unjust discrimination and to provide benefits to people judged by the civic authority as deserving – as long as such provision does not include the attempted redefinition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the sake of family.
To find out who your state representative is go to www.ilga.gov and click on the “Legislator Lookup” button in the lower right portion of the home page. You may also call our Chicago (312-368-1066) and Springfield (217-528-9200) offices to ask for help in determining your state representative and senator.
Cardinal Francis George is no longer the “big kahuna” of the Catholic Church and he never was, the “big guy” is named Pope Benedict XVI to whom all lesser prelates are supposed to look for guidance. Cardinal George was President of the USCCB only. Archbishop Dolan of NYC is now head of that very confusing organization, which as I understand it cannot make changes to doctrine or dogma of the Church. Neither can the Pope.
Following is the press release from the Catholic Conference of Illinois on behalf of Cardinal Francis George.We are urged to make calls to our State Reps and Senators – Message: “Vote NO on Senate Bill 1716 because it equates civil unions and marriage. I am opposed to undermining marriage in this way.” It is also true this bill could have a significant impact on the Church’s social service missions.
PRESS RELEASE CONTACT: Robert Gilligan , Director Catholic Conference of Illinois
November 22, 2010 312-368-1066
catholicconferenceofillinois.org/content/CivilUnionsSB1716PressRelease-112210.pdf
The Catholic Conference of Illinois (CCI), on behalf of Cardinal Francis George, OMI, and all the Bishops of Illinois, call upon the Illinois General Assembly to reject Senate Bill 1716, the civil union legislation.
“Everyone has a right to marry, but no one has the right to change the nature of marriage. Marriage is what it is and always has been, no matter what a legislature decides to do; however, the public understanding of marriage will be negatively affected by passage of a bill that ignores the natural fact that sexual complementarity is at the core of marriage,” said Cardinal George. “Moreover, the impact of this legislation on the Church’s social service ministries remains an important and thus far unanswered concern. This important legislation is being put before a lame-duck General Assembly and more should be done to engage the people in public debate.”
Marriage was not invented by either the state or the Church, and neither can change its nature. However, laws structure society, and they influence patterns of behavior and thought. In our country, as in most others, marriage is granted unique protections and benefits under the law because marriage is the foundation of family and society. The proposed legislation would further weaken an already fragile institution.
There is an inherent conflict between this legislation and religious liberty. Language in the bill offers little protection in the context of litigation that religious institutions and individuals will face if this bill is adopted. With no explicit protections for religious liberties, it will not take long before the General Assembly or the courts:
Mandate that faith-based institutions providing adoption or foster care services be required to place adoptive or foster children with couples who have entered into a same-sex civil union.
Require that Catholic parishes or Catholic agencies providing social services (including retreats, religious camps, homeless shelters, senior care centers and community centers) be compelled to provide these services to individuals who are in a same-sex civil union.
Refuse to protect small employers who do not wish to extend family benefits to employees in a same sex civil union.
The enactment of marriage-like benefits in civil union legislation will intensify the legal attack on marriage. It will not appease those who wish to redefine the institution of marriage. We need only look to California, Connecticut and other states where nearly identical legislation was passed. In every state where citizens have had the right to vote on marriage, they consistently express their support for marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Senate Bill 1716 seeks to afford all the “legal obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits” of marriage to individuals in a civil union. There are literally hundreds of references to married “spouses” throughout Illinois’ law to which parties to a civil union will now be included. These references are not limited to hospital visitation rights (which are already afforded same sex couples via Presidential Executive Order) or property rights (which can be provided for through legal arrangements). They include benefits from the state Pension Code, the legal guardianship of children and other provisions that govern married life in Illinois.The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuals “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Accordingly, we stand ready to work with the legislature and other agencies of state government to prevent unjust discrimination and to provide benefits to people judged by the civic authority as deserving – as long as such provision does not include the attempted redefinition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman for the sake of family.
To find out who your state representative is go to www.ilga.gov and click on the “Legislator Lookup” button in the lower right portion of the home page. You may also call our Chicago (312-368-1066) and Springfield (217-528-9200) offices to ask for help in determining your state representative and senator.
Cardinal Francis George is no longer the “big kahuna” of the Catholic Church and he never was, the “big guy” is named Pope Benedict XVI to whom all lesser prelates are supposed to look for guidance. Cardinal George was President of the USCCB only. Archbishop Dolan of NYC is now head of that very confusing organization, which as I understand it cannot make changes to doctrine or dogma of the Church. Neither can the Pope.
A
a_cermak
Guest
Good grief no! He lobbied against it!Please clarify what you have said? Are you saying Cardinal George lobbied for HB 1716? The following is the information I have seen.
S
Secret_Square
Guest
*It could be the elderly will form a significant part of the civil unions in IL as they could protect their union’s rights but also still qualify for survivor’s benefits. A lot of elderly have private religious ceremonies to mark their unions right now without the law being involved in order to safeguard those benefits. *
I have seen other news reports indicating the same thing. Apparently – someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – a civil union of this type would be recognized by the state and grant all the rights/privileges that the state grants to married people (inheritance, insurance coverage, medical decision making, etc.).
However, it would not be recognized by the federal government, so it wouldn’t affect Social Security, veteran’s benefits or income tax filing status. Hence some senior citizens and others might use civil unions to circumvent loss of certain benefits like Social Security derived from a previous marriage, that would be lost if they remarried.
Of course, if the federal government should ever decide to recognize civil unions or decide via the Supreme Court that civil marriages must also be open to same-sex couples, that advantage would be lost.
It is also my understanding that under present law in Illinois and elsewhere, it is against the law for a clergyperson of any denomination to perform an “unlicensed” marriage and not report it to the state. (This would not apply to couples who had already married civilly and were having their marriage validated in the Church.) So an elderly couple who asks a priest or minister to marry them only privately is, in essence, asking the priest/minister to break the law and, perhaps, to cooperate in an act of fraud. Would civil unions solve this dilemma, or just create a new one?
Some questions that Catholics priests/deacons in Illinois may have to start facing soon include the following: What should they do if a couple approaches them seeking to marry in the Church, but instead of presenting a marriage license, indicates that they have entered or are going to enter a civil union instead? Could the priest still witness their marriage or would he be cooperating in evil if he did (given that the Church opposed the creation of civil unions)?
Can a Catholic couple MORALLY choose a civil union in lieu of a regular marriage license in order to retain financial or legal advantages? Would opting for a civil union instead of a traditional civil marriage indicate a lack of the kind of commitment the Church expects of married couples? Could it impinge on the validity or sacramentality of their marriage?
As you can see, the “gay marriage” issue isn’t the only moral can of worms that is being opened up by this law.
The other potentially big problem is whether entities that do not wish to recognize civil unions for religious or moral reasons will be deemed guilty of discrimination and penalized in some fashion. I understand that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to stop placing children for adoption after Massachusetts instituted civil unions because the MA courts said they couldn’t refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It’s too soon to tell whether the same will happen in IL but it certainly could.
I have seen other news reports indicating the same thing. Apparently – someone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – a civil union of this type would be recognized by the state and grant all the rights/privileges that the state grants to married people (inheritance, insurance coverage, medical decision making, etc.).
However, it would not be recognized by the federal government, so it wouldn’t affect Social Security, veteran’s benefits or income tax filing status. Hence some senior citizens and others might use civil unions to circumvent loss of certain benefits like Social Security derived from a previous marriage, that would be lost if they remarried.
Of course, if the federal government should ever decide to recognize civil unions or decide via the Supreme Court that civil marriages must also be open to same-sex couples, that advantage would be lost.
It is also my understanding that under present law in Illinois and elsewhere, it is against the law for a clergyperson of any denomination to perform an “unlicensed” marriage and not report it to the state. (This would not apply to couples who had already married civilly and were having their marriage validated in the Church.) So an elderly couple who asks a priest or minister to marry them only privately is, in essence, asking the priest/minister to break the law and, perhaps, to cooperate in an act of fraud. Would civil unions solve this dilemma, or just create a new one?
Some questions that Catholics priests/deacons in Illinois may have to start facing soon include the following: What should they do if a couple approaches them seeking to marry in the Church, but instead of presenting a marriage license, indicates that they have entered or are going to enter a civil union instead? Could the priest still witness their marriage or would he be cooperating in evil if he did (given that the Church opposed the creation of civil unions)?
Can a Catholic couple MORALLY choose a civil union in lieu of a regular marriage license in order to retain financial or legal advantages? Would opting for a civil union instead of a traditional civil marriage indicate a lack of the kind of commitment the Church expects of married couples? Could it impinge on the validity or sacramentality of their marriage?
As you can see, the “gay marriage” issue isn’t the only moral can of worms that is being opened up by this law.
The other potentially big problem is whether entities that do not wish to recognize civil unions for religious or moral reasons will be deemed guilty of discrimination and penalized in some fashion. I understand that Catholic Charities in Massachusetts had to stop placing children for adoption after Massachusetts instituted civil unions because the MA courts said they couldn’t refuse to place children with same-sex couples. It’s too soon to tell whether the same will happen in IL but it certainly could.
M
Man
Guest
I think this bill might have been more palatable without the ‘incest’ portion, which prevents immediate relatives from engaging in it. The union would not make incest less legal, after all, but it does make the contract appear to indicate an interest in gay sex, which it certainly has no reason to rubber stamp. It also cuts out a large number of people for whom this would be quite fairly beneficial, such as the nigh ubiquitous elderly mother-daughter living situations.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.