Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[Musicadmirer]

The following links include statements from Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento:

cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/

diocese-sacramento.org/Home_news/Bishop-Soto-Statement-Prop8-Overturn.html

I could not locate a statement by Archbishop Neiderauer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, where the ruling was made yesterday. If anyone has a link to such a statement or statements by any other California clergy, please add it to this thread.

 

[Redratfish]

The following links include statements from Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento:

cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/

diocese-sacramento.org/Home_news/Bishop-Soto-Statement-Prop8-Overturn.html

I could not locate a statement by Archbishop Neiderauer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, where the ruling was made yesterday. If anyone has a link to such a statement or statements by any other California clergy, please add it to this thread.

So how do these two guys explain that 54 percent of California Catholics support the ruling?

 

[stephe1987]

If they are going to try to make Christian churches allow gays to marry, then there’s going to be a serious problem.

 

[Holly3278]

I totally agree with these two Bishops. Gay “marriage” is wrong. It is evil. And it is not marriage! Marriage was ordained by God when He created Adam and Eve. God created Adam and Eve, not two gay men or two lesbians. Also, the Bible thoroughly condemns same-sex activity:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent. Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves.
(Leviticus 18:22-24 NAB-A)

Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.
(Romans 1:24-27 NAB-A)

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
(1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NAB-A)

Now, granted, the next verse could be used to refer to transsexuals but many homosexuals are transsexuals.

A woman shall not wear an article proper to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s dress; for anyone who does such things is an abomination to the LORD, your God.
(Deuteronomy 22:5 NAB-A)

Also, Sacred Tradition condemns homosexuality as well:

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_on_Homosexuality.asp

So yeah, gay “marriage” is wrong because it inevitably involves homosexual sex acts and homosexual relationships.

 

[KJK80]

Proposition 8 was poorly worded, allowing the existence of other types of marriage, which must then be protected. In all reality it’s Proposition 8’s proponents and writers that brought this on.

Also, I think it’s somewhat shaky to attempt using Biblical quotes to form public law. There’s a lot of Biblical “statutes” that I seriously doubt you want made into law. Which is all pretty much a non-worry in the US anyway.

I think there’s a bit of a can of worms opened up by the ruling, but in a way it follows reason to the logical conclusion of prop 8.

There’s probably a lot of other things we could be more productive focusing on, other than this. It didn’t take away any rights for heterosexual couples to procreate.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

This issue, for me, has been a hard one.
I am not homophobic… I don’t think gays are evil. I believe they were born that way. The gays I have known are nice people. So when this whole issue started I had to search my soul.

It has helped me to see the Catholic church’s stance… in knowing we all have things that we have to overcome.
So being gay is just like other things we all struggle with. Just because we struggle with things… doesn’t mean we give into sin.
No judge can rule that it is not a sin. The judge is a human being… he cant wipe away the sin.
No matter what a human does… the ultimate judge is our Lord.
It is sad to see some Catholics defending the ruling… Do they not see… a judge can not take away a sinful act?

 

[sw85]

Proposition 8 was poorly worded, allowing the existence of other types of marriage, which must then be protected. In all reality it’s Proposition 8’s proponents and writers that brought this on.

I’m sorry but I don’t follow. As I recall it simply said something like “marriage in California will consist of the union of a man and a woman.”

I don’t see how this allows the “existence of other types of marriage, which must then be protected.”

 

[edwest2]

Proposition 8 was poorly worded, allowing the existence of other types of marriage, which must then be protected. In all reality it’s Proposition 8’s proponents and writers that brought this on.

Also, I think it’s somewhat shaky to attempt using Biblical quotes to form public law. There’s a lot of Biblical “statutes” that I seriously doubt you want made into law. Which is all pretty much a non-worry in the US anyway.

I think there’s a bit of a can of worms opened up by the ruling, but in a way it follows reason to the logical conclusion of prop 8.

There’s probably a lot of other things we could be more productive focusing on, other than this. It didn’t take away any rights for heterosexual couples to procreate.

Are you aware of Church teaching on this matter?

God bless,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

This issue, for me, has been a hard one.
I am not homophobic… I don’t think gays are evil. I believe they were born that way. The gays I have known are nice people. So when this whole issue started I had to search my soul.

It has helped me to see the Catholic church’s stance… in knowing we all have things that we have to overcome.
So being gay is just like other things we all struggle with. Just because we struggle with things… doesn’t mean we give into sin.
No judge can rule that it is not a sin. The judge is a human being… he cant wipe away the sin.
No matter what a human does… the ultimate judge is our Lord.
It is sad to see some Catholics defending the ruling… Do they not see… a judge can not take away a sinful act?

Do you know what the Catholic Medical Association has said about homosexuality?

Have you read any Church documents about same sex marriage?

Catholics who do not know and do not understand Church teaching may think they are doing the right thing, but years of being told that homosexuals are born that way has confused them.

Being gay is not evil, any more than being heterosexual is evil. But heterosexuals simply cannot go around having sex with anyone we’re not married to. Oh yeah, in the late 1960s, the Hippies and anarchists said we were “sexually repressed” because we weren’t having sex with our girlfriends. So, after 40 years of seeing unmarried people living together on TV and in the movies, some people just forgot Church teaching. I’m not kidding.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Christopher68]

This issue, for me, has been a hard one.
I am not homophobic… I don’t think gays are evil. I believe they were born that way. The gays I have known are nice people. So when this whole issue started I had to search my soul.

It has helped me to see the Catholic church’s stance… in knowing we all have things that we have to overcome.
So being gay is just like other things we all struggle with. Just because we struggle with things… doesn’t mean we give into sin.
No judge can rule that it is not a sin. The judge is a human being… he cant wipe away the sin.
No matter what a human does… the ultimate judge is our Lord.
It is sad to see some Catholics defending the ruling… Do they not see… a judge can not take away a sinful act?

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I admit that this issue is a hard one for me too. Part of my difficulty with this issue is that some of the people who oppose gay marriage also favor making homosexual activity between consenting adults illegal - and that mindset is in direct conflict with the libertarianism that has been a part of my core beliefs for as long as I can remember. Not all ‘sins’ require ‘laws’. I understand the Church’s position on this topic and I respect it. However, I cannot feign outrage where none exists - I am not wired like that.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Do you know what the Catholic Medical Association has said about homosexuality?

Have you read any Church documents about same sex marriage?

Catholics who do not know and do not understand Church teaching may think they are doing the right thing, but years of being told that homosexuals are born that way has confused them.

Being gay is not evil, any more than being heterosexual is evil. But heterosexuals simply cannot go around having sex with anyone we’re not married to. Oh yeah, in the late 1960s, the Hippies and anarchists said we were “sexually repressed” because we weren’t having sex with our girlfriends. So, after 40 years of seeing unmarried people living together on TV and in the movies, some people just forgot Church teaching. I’m not kidding.

God bless,
Ed

I am against gay marriage because of being informed WHY by the Catholic church.
Prior to finding out why the church is against it… I had mixed feelings.

I am not in any way shape or form condoning sex out side of marriage… homosexual or heterosexual.

I am sorry you misunderstood me.

 

[Stjudeprayforus]

Thank you for a very thoughtful post. I admit that this issue is a hard one for me too. Part of my difficulty with this issue is that some of the people who oppose gay marriage also favor making homosexual activity between consenting adults illegal - and that mindset is in direct conflict with the libertarianism that has been a part of my core beliefs for as long as I can remember. Not all ‘sins’ require ‘laws’. I understand the Church’s position on this topic and I respect it. However, I cannot feign outrage where none exists - I am not wired like that.

Making anything illegal doesn’t mean it wont happen anyway. Murder is illegal …yet… happens everyday.

My fear is that people will start thinking mans law equals God changing his mind on the subject.
Prime example… abortion.

 

[edwest2]

Making anything illegal doesn’t mean it wont happen anyway. Murder is illegal …yet… happens everyday.

My fear is that people will start thinking mans law equals God changing his mind on the subject.
Prime example… abortion.

Based on statements made by the secular media, they don’t believe God is involved in anything. In a local forum, the anarchists who want to legalize marijuana believe “those religious types no longer have the same influence they used to have.” And what has Father Corapi said about silence regarding abortion? We cannot afford to be silent.

The people who are constantly shouting immoral garbage on the radio, on TV and on the internet have our attention. I suggest a good Catholic newspaper and turning on Catholic radio.

The secular media speaks in one voice daily:

Yes to abortion.
Yes to embryonic stem cell research.
Yes to gay marriage.
And religious types should just go to their Church buildings and mind their own business.

Fill your mind with good Catholic teaching. Don’t allow the secular media to fill your head with their way of living.

God bless,
Ed

 

[KJK80]

Are you aware of Church teaching on this matter?

God bless,
Ed

There’s lots of things in Church teaching that are not in law.

Church teaching is completely irrelevant here.

This does not limit the Church in any way. Nor does it force the Catholic Church to sanctify same-sex marriages. The Catholic Church and the states already differ on marriage issues, divorce being one.

This does challenge the Church to do a better job teaching on the matter and taking a stand though. Which at the local level anyway, it’s doing a pretty horrible job.

 

[KJK80]

I’m sorry but I don’t follow. As I recall it simply said something like “marriage in California will consist of the union of a man and a woman.”

I don’t see how this allows the “existence of other types of marriage, which must then be protected.”

Prop 8 reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That logically must mean there are other types of marriage.

 

[sw85]

Prop 8 reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That logically must mean there are other types of marriage.

Sure there are. Marriages which exist without legal validity or recognition. Which no one has ever denied.

As I’ve said elsewhere, homosexuals are already free, if they like, to go find a church and pastor willing to “marry” them and hold a little ceremony. They can even go around calling it a “marriage” and no one will try to stop them. It simply isn’t one in any meaningful legal sense of the word in the vast majority of jurisdictions that have been allowed to choose the law for themselves.

 

[Suudy]

There’s lots of things in Church teaching that are not in law.

Church teaching is completely irrelevant here.

It is relevant because you list your religion as Catholic. And as the Catechism states (emphasis mine):

**CCC 838 **“The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.” Those “who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”

The question, it seemed to me, was pointed at your identification as Catholic, and the requirement that we Catholics must “profess the Catholic faith in its entirety…”

 

[Suudy]

Prop 8 reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That logically must mean there are other types of marriage.

Ontologically? Or practically?

As to the former, no, there is no other type of marriage than between a man and a woman. As to the latter? Well, look at the whole gay “marriage” movement.

But as Catholics, we are interested in the truth. And the truth is that in reality, no other marriage actually, in fact, ontologically exists than between a man and a woman.

 

[scipio337]

…This does not limit the Church in any way. Nor does it force the Catholic Church to sanctify same-sex marriages…

I’m not quite so optimistic, with the examples of Catholic Charities of Boston and D.C.'s brushes with “nondiscriminatory” laws. Throw in the USSC ruling in United States v Bob Jones University, and you have a recipie for disaster.

 

[KJK80]

My view that the Church’s teaching is irrelevant in this ruling does not affect my standing with the Catholic Church.

And it doesn’t change my point, that it’s more important for the Catholic Church to educate within its walls (which is its jurisdiction) and not waste time trying to control popular vote or government’s rulings. Which by the way, the whole point at the “outrage” is a government ruling OVER popular vote.

What’s happening on the local level, is in my opinion, more important than this ruling. And I would guess that you’ll find what’s happening at your local Catholic church more surprising than what’s happening in San Francisco. At least I did.

More freedom and less regulation at a government level, is more good than harm in my viewpoint. Unless of course, you would like regulation on how you are to worship God… Which I’m sure is possible, at least in the USA.