Statement of Chicago's Cardinal George Regarding Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage

[livingwordunity]

Here it is:

**ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO

Statement of Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Regarding Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage

June 26, 2013**

This morning, in the guise of technical legal language, the United States Supreme Court advanced the project of making marriage in the United States a genderless institution. Since women and men are not interchangeable, the Court’s action is illogical and pretentious. The Court abuses its own authority when it permits civil law to alter the definition of marriage, which is a natural institution. What is truly at stake in these decisions is not the right of adults to love whom they please, but rather the right of children to have both a mother and a father.

Today’s decisions also bring us one step closer to the day when those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital unions and same-sex arrangements will be regarded as “bigots.” We have already seen the negative result of gender-free unions on Catholic social services here in Illinois and other states.

We can all be grateful that the Court did not create a new “right” to same-sex marriage, allowing Illinois and other states to continue to acknowledge in law what nature and nature’s God already tell us: that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the sake of family.

I agree with Cardinal George 100%.

Source

 

[Minnesota1]

Can the Cardinals please stop doing speeches and prayers at the DNC convention such as in 2012. The platform was largely abortion and gay marriage. The perception thus becomes we endorse it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The problem with this complaint is that he needs to be arguing on constitutional grounds, not moral ones. Justices do not swear to uphold biblical morality, but rather an objective, secular, legal document. For the criticism to really mean anything a statement should be released critiquing the court’s legal opinion. But my guess would be that the bishops, like most people, do not have the background required or the will to read through 100 pages of legal opinion to argue against it.

 

[livingwordunity]

The problem with this complaint is that he needs to be arguing on constitutional grounds, not moral ones. Justices do not swear to uphold biblical morality, but rather an objective, secular, legal document. For the criticism to really mean anything a statement should be released critiquing the court’s legal opinion. But my guess would be that the bishops, like most people, do not have the background required or the will to read through 100 pages of legal opinion to argue against it.

As American morality continues to sink down to the lowest common denominator of opinion, a million pages of legal opinion would not equal the moral authority given to the bishops by Christ. Life is very short, but many people act as if they think they will live forever, as if they can continue doing evil and get away with it. Sooner or later rich and poor will all face our maker for judgment. The problem with so-called “same-sex” marriage is that it’s a lie. And if it’s redefined by a foolish man-made law it will still be a lie and not real marriage. And even if (more likely when) every country in the world redefines it the Catholic Church will still hold to the truth about marriage just as she always has.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

As American morality continues to sink down to the lowest common denominator of opinion, a million pages of legal opinion would not equal the moral authority given to the bishops by Christ. Life is very short, but many people act as if they think they will live forever, as if they can continue doing evil and get away with it. Sooner or later rich and poor will all face our maker for judgment.

And that’s fine, they should work out their own salvation through fear and trembling and not expect the courts to do it for them. I think with most supreme court cases there is room for legitimate criticism of the legal reasoning used and the conclusions drawn. But for that criticism to be respectable and intellectually honest it has to come from a serious interpretation of the constitution, not a moral complaint. Once again the function of the court is not to uphold anything but the constitution.

 

[BklynTony]

Here it is:

**ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO

Statement of Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. Regarding Supreme Court Decisions on Marriage

June 26, 2013**

This morning, in the guise of technical legal language, the United States Supreme Court advanced the project of making marriage in the United States a genderless institution. Since women and men are not interchangeable, the Court’s action is illogical and pretentious. The Court abuses its own authority when it permits civil law to alter the definition of marriage, which is a natural institution. What is truly at stake in these decisions is not the right of adults to love whom they please, but rather the right of children to have both a mother and a father.

Today’s decisions also bring us one step closer to the day when those who continue to distinguish between genuine marital unions and same-sex arrangements will be regarded as “bigots.” We have already seen the negative result of gender-free unions on Catholic social services here in Illinois and other states.

We can all be grateful that the Court did not create a new “right” to same-sex marriage, allowing Illinois and other states to continue to acknowledge in law what nature and nature’s God already tell us: that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for the sake of family.

I agree with Cardinal George 100%.

Source

I as a Catholic am personally against same sex marriage and would be unashamed to stand as a supporter of marriage as we believe God intended it to be, that is between a man and a woman. A relationship with the purpose of Love and procreation of human life…to love as a sample of the Triune God …God the Lover, Jesus The Beloved and the Holy Spirit the outpouring of the Grace of that Love. We recognize Jesus being betrothed to the Church and we are Her Children. This we believe as Catholics, but that is the point `not everyone believes as we do, not everyone are Christians…not all Christians believe as practicing Catholics.
I strongly defend the rights of the Church to preach the word of God to all who would listen…but to those who do not hear, chose not to hear(non believers), have been born to this world with homosexual tendencies through no fault of their own and only want to live a life as any other person we consider normal…how as America…the land of the free…upholders of Human Rights deny a right freely given supposedly to all.
I urge the Church to teach it’s beliefs, to preach the word of God, but ultimately America has to remain free, and the responsibility falls on the Churches to educate, evangelize, to make known the word of God, what God’s plan is for us and our responsibility to achieve God’s will.
Just as Priests deny themselves the right to marriage to women,although it is their Human right, those with homosexual tendencies should equally abstain from forming a union with another because of God’s will and NOT force by the United States Law .

 

[livingwordunity]

And that’s fine, they should work out their own salvation through fear and trembling and not expect the courts to do it for them. I think with most supreme court cases there is room for legitimate criticism of the legal reasoning used and the conclusions drawn. But for that criticism to be respectable and intellectually honest it has to come from a serious interpretation of the constitution, not a moral complaint. Once again the function of the court is not to uphold anything but the constitution.

I’m going to continue to do whatever I can to oppose the redefinition of marriage. But I have no doubt that sooner or later every country in the world will redefine marriage to so-called “same-sex marriage” because it’s all playing out exactly as it was prophesied in the Holy Bible about what the world will be like leading up to the end times. No one can deny the fact that there is a great apostasy from God going on in the world combined with the whole world fast turning into one big Sodom and Gomorrah. It couldn’t get any more biblical than that.

 

[Demetra2]

As American morality continues to sink down to the lowest common denominator of opinion, a million pages of legal opinion would not equal the moral authority given to the bishops by Christ. Life is very short, but many people act as if they think they will live forever, as if they can continue doing evil and get away with it. Sooner or later rich and poor will all face our maker for judgment. The problem with so-called “same-sex” marriage is that it’s a lie. And if it’s redefined by a foolish man-made law it will still be a lie and not real marriage. And even if (more likely when) every country in the world redefines it the Catholic Church will still hold to the truth about marriage just as she always has.

AMEN!

 

[Kevin_B]

And that’s fine, they should work out their own salvation through fear and trembling and not expect the courts to do it for them. I think with most supreme court cases there is room for legitimate criticism of the legal reasoning used and the conclusions drawn. But for that criticism to be respectable and intellectually honest it has to come from a serious interpretation of the constitution, not a moral complaint. Once again the function of the court is not to uphold anything but the constitution.

I agree. The Catholic church wants the Supreme Court to have more jurisdiction than just determining whether laws are constitutional or not. They want them to determine whether or not they are morally acceptable.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but they need to pass an amendment changing the scope of the Court, rather than simply expect them to go rogue.

I don’t think you’ll find a constitutional scholar in the country that thought DOMA
actually constitutional.

Heck, even the justices that dissented did so on moral grounds, almost certainly because even they could not find constitutional ground for this law. It’s a shame when even our own supreme court doesn’t know their job.

 

[JimG]

I agree. The Catholic church wants the Supreme Court to have more jurisdiction than just determining whether laws are constitutional or not. They want them to determine whether or not they are morally acceptable.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but they need to pass an amendment changing the scope of the Court, rather than simply expect them to go rogue.

I don’t think you’ll find a constitutional scholar in the country that thought DOMA
actually constitutional.

Heck, even the justices that dissented did so on moral grounds, almost certainly because even they could not find constitutional ground for this law. It’s a shame when even our own supreme court doesn’t know their job.

I don’t expect the Court to uphold Catholic morality. I would be happy if it determined the constitutionality of gay marriage by simply reading the constitution and asking themselves whether its authors ever thought that they were writing a mandate for same sex marriage. I don’t want the Court to “go rogue.” I want them to read the Constitution the way it’s written. Did anyone who wrote any of the articles of the Constitution or any of its amendments think that they were writing an authorization for same sex marriage? If one might have asked them, the reply would be “of course not—that’s impossible!”

 

[Kevin_B]

I don’t expect the Court to uphold Catholic morality. I would be happy if it determined the constitutionality of gay marriage by simply reading the constitution and asking themselves whether its authors ever thought that they were writing a mandate for same sex marriage. I don’t want the Court to “go rogue.” I want them to read the Constitution the way it’s written. Did anyone who wrote any of the articles of the Constitution or any of its amendments think that they were writing an authorization for same sex marriage? If one might have asked them, the reply would be “of course not—that’s impossible!”

Which is why the Court did not decide that people have a right to same-sex marriage. You need to read up more on the decision. They simply decided that part of the DOMA act was unconstitutional; specifically, the part that says the federal government does not recognize some legal “marriages” in certain states.

Nowhere did they determine that people have a legal right to same-sex marriage. In fact, the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage wasn’t even a question brought in front of the court.

 

[Lancer]

The problem with this complaint is that he needs to be arguing on constitutional grounds, not moral ones. Justices do not swear to uphold biblical morality, but rather an objective, secular, legal document. For the criticism to really mean anything a statement should be released critiquing the court’s legal opinion. But my guess would be that the bishops, like most people, do not have the background required or the will to read through 100 pages of legal opinion to argue against it.

Disagree…you missed the Cardinal’s thesis argument…he did not make a moral or legal argument…he made a Creation argument. Man can do all kinds of things…morally and legally speaking…but one thing Man cannot do:

“…man does not have the capacity to create. He cannot recreate man: he cannot invent some other child of God. He nevertheless retains the capacity in freedom to live what he was given in a way that degrades, destroys or falsifies it…”

…The only thing that counts between us and God is what is free. God judges us according to our choices."

(Servant of God, Madeleine Delbrel +1964, French laywoman, writer and devoted caregiver to the poor and to evangelizing the culture)
​

​

So, Man (male or female)…God created him…and Man has no capacity to recreate or invent Man…that is the Cardinal’s argument:

This morning, in the guise of technical legal language, the United States Supreme Court advanced the project of making marriage in the United States a genderless institution. Since women and men are not interchangeable, the Court’s action is illogical and pretentious.

So God created Man…male and female He made them…and gave them complimentary genders. Man can do essentially two things…he can accept or reject God’s creation…but one thing he can’t do is recreate…or…invent Man…he can’t create a society in which Man’s gender is ignored or dismissed…without disastrous results.

Also, the Cardinal is speaking and teaching from a patrimony of 2000+ yrs of Church history…up close and personal history. Who or what organization is so intimately knowledgeable of…and has been there and seen every good idea and choice that Man has made…as well as everyone of Man’s most disastrous ideas and choices…for which Man is solely responsible. Just imagine one single, old, faithful priest who after 50 years of hearing Confessions…he could give you a “toilet paper roll long” list of things you should never do…because he has heard and seen the disastrous results…up close and personal…in the some of the sheep of his flock… that he has done his best to shepherd …sheep who thought that they could “recreate and invent”. No one, and I mean no one, knows better about Man…who created him, why he was created, and what his ultimate goal is and…where his ultimate happiness is found and what it is based on. No one…period

So it will be in this Homosexual Marriage choice…All Man’s efforts to “recreate and invent”…will leave a trail of disasters…and the whole project will eventually wind up in the dust bin of history…bad history. one day Dr. Phil will ask us as a culture…“so, how is that working out for you?..”…and when we answer in Truth…the dust bin will start filling up. Sadly, so many very good people homosexual and heterosexual…will be gravely damaged and even ruined by this experimental project…especially children…the little ones who are the most innocent ones…and who God himself has said are dearest to him.

Matthew 18:6
Knox Bible (KNOX)
6 And if anyone hurts the conscience of one of these little ones, that believe in me, he had better have been drowned in the depths of the sea, with a mill-stone hung about his neck.

Luke 17:2
Knox Bible (KNOX)
2 Better for him to have had a mill-stone tied about his neck, and to be cast into the sea, than to have hurt the conscience of** one of these little ones**.

As the old adage goes…ideas and choices have consequences…and bad ideas and bad choices have bad consequences. It’s really that simple.

Pax Christi

 

[JimG]

Which is why the Court did not decide that people have a right to same-sex marriage. You need to read up more on the decision. They simply decided that part of the DOMA act was unconstitutional; specifically, the part that says the federal government does not recognize some legal “marriages” in certain states.

Nowhere did they determine that people have a legal right to same-sex marriage. In fact, the Constitutionality of same-sex marriage wasn’t even a question brought in front of the court.

I agree, but I think it is an back door approach. It’s step one. Are you willing to bet that in some future case–soon–they will not find that discrimination on the basis of sex–even as it relates to marriage–is a violation of the equal protection clause? They’ll find same sex marriage in there somewhere, just like they found a right to abortion in there.

I hope I’m wrong, but I’m not counting on it.

 

[livingwordunity]

Disagree…you missed the Cardinal’s thesis argument…he did not make a moral or legal argument…he made a Creation argument. Man can do all kinds of things…morally and legally speaking…but one thing Man cannot do:

So, Man (male or female)…God created him…and Man has no capacity to recreate or invent Man…that is the Cardinal’s argument:

So God created Man…male and female He made them…and gave them complimentary genders. Man can do essentially two things…he can accept or reject God’s creation…but one thing he can’t do is recreate…or…invent Man…he can’t create a society in which Man’s gender is ignored or dismissed…without disastrous results.

Also, the Cardinal is speaking and teaching from a patrimony of 2000+ yrs of Church history…up close and personal history. Who or what organization is so intimately knowledgeable of…and has been there and seen every good idea and choice that Man has made…as well as everyone of Man’s most disastrous ideas and choices…for which Man is solely responsible. Just imagine one single, old, faithful priest who after 50 years of hearing Confessions…he could give you a “toilet paper roll long” list of things you should never do…because he has heard and seen the disastrous results…up close and personal…in the some of the sheep of his flock… that he has done his best to shepherd …sheep who thought that they could “recreate and invent”. No one, and I mean no one, knows better about Man…who created him, why he was created, and what his ultimate goal is and…where his ultimate happiness is found and what it is based on. No one…period

So it will be in this Homosexual Marriage choice…All Man’s efforts to “recreate and invent”…will leave a trail of disasters…and the whole project will eventually wind up in the dust bin of history…bad history. one day Dr. Phil will ask us as a culture…“so, how is that working out for you?..”…and when we answer in Truth…the dust bin will start filling up. Sadly, so many very good people homosexual and heterosexual…will be gravely damaged and even ruined by this experimental project…especially children…the little ones who are the most innocent ones…and who God himself has said are dearest to him.

As the old adage goes…ideas and choices have consequences…and bad ideas and bad choices have bad consequences. It’s really that simple.

Pax Christi

 

[Holly3278]

I also completely agree with him. What happened in the Supreme Court on Wednesday was a complete, total, and utter atrocity. I cannot condemn it strongly enough.

 

[Holly3278]

As American morality continues to sink down to the lowest common denominator of opinion, a million pages of legal opinion would not equal the moral authority given to the bishops by Christ. Life is very short, but many people act as if they think they will live forever, as if they can continue doing evil and get away with it. Sooner or later rich and poor will all face our maker for judgment. The problem with so-called “same-sex” marriage is that it’s a lie. And if it’s redefined by a foolish man-made law it will still be a lie and not real marriage. And even if (more likely when) every country in the world redefines it the Catholic Church will still hold to the truth about marriage just as she always has.

We will live forever but not here on earth. We’ll live forever in either Heaven or Hell. Of course I know you know that and I know you agree with that. However, I do think that people who condone “gay marriage” need to watch out because they are committing a grave sin by doing so and they could be putting themselves at risk of spending eternity in Hell.

 

[JimG]

And here’s a statement from the Archbishop of Oklahoma City:

Archbishop Coakley: No court decision can change the truth about marriage.

 

[manualman]

…but to those who do not hear, chose not to hear(non believers), have been born to this world with homosexual tendencies through no fault of their own and only want to live a life as any other person we consider normal…how as America…the land of the free…upholders of Human Rights deny a right freely given supposedly to all.
I urge the Church to teach it’s beliefs, to preach the word of God, but ultimately America has to remain free, and the responsibility falls on the Churches to educate, evangelize, to make known the word of God, what God’s plan is for us and our responsibility to achieve God’s will.
Just as Priests deny themselves the right to marriage to women,although it is their Human right, those with homosexual tendencies should equally abstain from forming a union with another because of God’s will and NOT force by the United States Law .

It’s noble to be principled, but you are misstating the situation. The above might apply if we had laws in place to identify, hunt down and imprison all who commit sodomy. But we don’t. They are free to do as they wish. They can even call themselves married if they like. But that’s not what they want. They want LEGAL recognition that their relationship is identical to actual marriage.

In this country (and in most) legal benefits have historically ben extended to marriage because and ONLY because we recognized marriage as a relationship innately oriented towards making and raising children (upon which society depends). These were not “rights,” but priviledges extended for a REASON for which gay couples do not qualify. There is no more reason to extend legal benefits to gay couples than there is to extend them to non-romantic “best friends.” Shall we assert that best friends too have the “rights” historically associated with marriage? Why or why not?

 

[BklynTony]

It’s noble to be principled, but you are misstating the situation. The above might apply if we had laws in place to identify, hunt down and imprison all who commit sodomy. But we don’t. They are free to do as they wish. They can even call themselves married if they like. But that’s not what they want. They want LEGAL recognition that their relationship is identical to actual marriage.

In this country (and in most) legal benefits have historically ben extended to marriage because and ONLY because we recognized marriage as a relationship innately oriented towards making and raising children (upon which society depends). These were not “rights,” but priviledges extended for a REASON for which gay couples do not qualify. There is no more reason to extend legal benefits to gay couples than there is to extend them to non-romantic “best friends.” Shall we assert that best friends too have the “rights” historically associated with marriage? Why or why not?

WOW…if that be the case we still have slaves…very legal, very proper…if you were the right color.
All I am saying even Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar, Render unto God what is God’s. Please understand me…I am not for gay marriage, but it is based on my religious views,therefore I believe it is the Church’s responsibility to preach God’s word. If all who claim a christian practicing background…for that matter many religious per suasion and PRACTICED the word of God…this would not be an issue since a vast majority claim some religious affiliation.NO, we must get people to believe God’s words.Ding away with Abortion, the death penalty, succeeding with social justice will never be accomplished through the laws of man, but by the word of God. You cannot lead people with laws, but if done with love and understanding they will follow, even walk beside you.The Church looks the other way on so many issues…and maybe rightly so, I do not make any judgement. You say do not qualify really is insulting to so many people. How many perfectly married people(man to woman) decide not to have children , yet are totally involved in Church activity…this type of list go on and on…Qualify… …talk about judgement.

 

[JimG]

WOW…if that be the case we still have slaves…very legal, very proper…if you were the right color.
All I am saying even Jesus said render unto Caesar what is Caesar, Render unto God what is God’s. Please understand me…I am not for gay marriage, but it is based on my religious views,therefore I believe it is the Church’s responsibility to preach God’s word. If all who claim a christian practicing background…for that matter many religious per suasion and PRACTICED the word of God…this would not be an issue since a vast majority claim some religious affiliation.NO, we must get people to believe God’s words.Ding away with Abortion, the death penalty, succeeding with social justice will never be accomplished through the laws of man, but by the word of God. You cannot lead people with laws, but if done with love and understanding they will follow, even walk beside you.The Church looks the other way on so many issues…and maybe rightly so, I do not make any judgement. You say do not qualify really is insulting to so many people. How many perfectly married people(man to woman) decide not to have children , yet are totally involved in Church activity…this type of list go on and on…Qualify… …talk about judgement.

You say that your opposition to gay marriage is based on your religious views. Is that all? For myself, I base it upon human biology and anatomy before religion even comes into the picture. Man and woman are made for each other. That’s how civilizations endure. That’s why every civilization in history has recognized marriage as between man and woman.

Marriage predates Christianity. Marriage predates Judaism. Civilizations have always recognized marriage as between man and woman because that’s what it takes for a conjugal relationship. That’s what it takes for the continuance of civilization. Same sex ‘marriage’ is not wrong because it goes against my religion, but because it is impossible. It can never be conjugal. There can never be truly marital relations. It’s not that gay marriage is against religion. Gay marriage is a contradiction in terms.