At the same time, the Church upholds the dignity and sanctity of marriage as a natural union established by God between one man and one woman, intended towards the establishment of a family in which children are born, raised, and nurtured. This is not simply a matter of belief. It is at the very heart of the nature of marriage. Thus, it is not within the power of any institution, religious or secular, to redefine marriage since it is God who is its author.
Today's decision by Richard L. Young, Chief Judge United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana, to redefine the institution of marriage as an emotional partnership between two consenting adults regardless of gender ignores this fundamental and natural truth of marriage and opens its definition to the whims of public opinion.
With deep respect for all our brothers and sisters, we nevertheless see no basis in law or in nature for any definition of marriage that seeks to expand it beyond that of a covenant between one man and one woman. Our position on this matter seeks only the common good of all men and women as well as the health and well being of families.
As pastors, we will continue to preach and teach the truth of marriage as it is ordered by God, encouraging all people to embrace the fullness of that truth, while upholding the dignity of all persons. We will continue to work through the Indiana Catholic Conference to encourage our legislators and judges to uphold this truth as well. We urge all involved in this issue to conduct themselves with mutual respect and civility in public discourse.
Most Reverend Joseph W. Tobin, C.Ss.R., D.D.
Archdiocese of Indianapolis
Most Reverend Christopher J. Coyne, S.L.D.
Archdiocese of Indianapolis
Most Reverend Charles C. Thompson, D.D., J. C.L.
Diocese of Evansville
Most Reverend Kevin C. Rhoades, D. D.
Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
Most Reverend Dale J. Melczek, D.D.
Diocese of Gary
Most Reverend Timothy L. Doherty, D.D., Ph.D.
Diocese of Lafayette-in-Indiana
"Our position on this matter seeks only the common good of all men and women as well as the health and well being of families."
ReplyDeleteIt would be exceptionally beneficial to their argument if they could prove that society benefits by restricting marriage between a man and women. Dozens of lawyers have tried and none succeeded. What proof does the Catholic Church have that can prove marriage equality causes societal harm? Until they can establish this through objective evidence they are causing undue harm by attempting to subjugate and humiliate people even if their religion teaches gays are morally inferior. The profession of love and respect for all people is an outright lie.
Also, why is marriage being redefined by this ruling? Was voting redefined when it was expanded to blacks and women? Inserting language that limits marriage rights between men and women only by the Indiana legislature is the only attempt at redefinition I see here.
Catholic Church - "marriage being between a man and a woman is a first principle. Every society has first principles that it is founded on; you can't NOT have first principles. You can change marriage and make it between two people of the same sex, but then you've changed the first principle. If the first principle changes, we are telling you that the society will not last. There is no "proof" - if we don't agree that marriage is
Deletea) a first principle and
b) between a man and a woman
Then we simply flat out come to an impasse, and we either fight it out in court or you'll have to throw us in jail."
"There is the no "proof"- if we don't agree that marriage is
ReplyDeletea) a first principle and
b) between a man and a woman"
So, there can not be proof until we agree with the Catholic Church? I agree there is no need for proof in this situation, but that's hardly an argument. In fact, this is the laziest reasoning I've ever read in this debate. No wonder so many Catholics support marriage equality.
"If the first principle changes, we are telling you that the society will not last."
I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia, but they don't follow these principles and are an ancient civilization. This argument is easy to debunk.
Arguments about "first principles" are
Deletea) do we continue using our first principles or
b) adopt new ones
If you follow logic, at some point you have to get to a baseline in a democracy; a base of first principles that we all take to be axiomatic. So those on your side say that "it should not be axiomatically held that marriage is between a man and a woman". We will always be at completely opposite ends on that axiom, and so, in a democracy, we fight through courts and legislation, over the axioms, and we work tirelessly, on both sides, to try to ensure that the axioms that we believe should undergird a healthy democracy are in fact the axioms (first principles) that are respected and used in our country.
The beauty of America is we can fight in court and in the legislatures of this land and not blow each other up. We can disagree on what first principles we should be upholding, and not kill each other. So, I respect you as a person, I respect your willingness to work to see that what you believe to be important first principles are in fact first principles for our nation moving forward. I, at the same time, as a Catholic, believe that if your first principles become our nation's first principles, things will come crashing down, so I will be working on the other side to see that the first principle of marriage being only between one man and one woman continues to be a first principle of this nation.
Meanwhile, as you are worrying about axioms and two men marrying each other--or two women--there are people starving in Haiti, Africa, right here in America; probably in your own back yard. We have people that afford medicine they need to treat their illnesses, we have homeless people who don't know where to look for their next meal......and you worry about AXIOMS and who marries who?!?!? WOW! If you and the rest of the church would worry more about the needy, there wouldn't be much for poverty anymore, right Fr. Hollowell? And don't tell me that the Catholic Church is the biggest source of charity. I've heard that before. Prove to me the effort to feeding the starving, clothing the naked and providing shelter for the homeless over the past few years has been focused on MORE than worrying about Frank and Fred or Betty and Bertha getting married to each other.
Deleteso if people were NOT hungry, then we could talk about the important question of what marriage is, but because people ARE hungry, we can't talk about these important questions?
DeleteHow much money did you spend on your documentary? Could that money have been spent more wisely on feeding hungry people in Indiana?
Delete87,000. No, it could not have been spent more wisely.
DeleteIf God said somewhere that we are to do nothing, buy nothing, and spend nothing until no one is hungry, let me know where that's at.
You have to be kidding. You are aren't you? Please say you are.
Delete$87,000 to bring up, AGAIN, reparative therapy to a society that has heard about it for decades? Sure, money well spent.
DeleteLets compare how many times Jesus spoke about helping the poor, sick, and hungry to how many times he spoke of homosexuality and I think you'll have an answer to where our priorities should be.
Thank you for demonstrating the fact that you didn't actually watch "The Third Way"
DeleteMr. Ed - I am not kidding. You should go research how much documentaries from those who want to redefine marriage are spending before you criticize our project
DeleteHow about do this Fr. Hollowell: Raise $87,00 for the poor starving people in Haiti. You raised that much money to do a documentary on gays, so now do another positive thing! If you can raise $87,000 on a documentary, you can raise the same---if not more---for the starving Haitians! Heck, I'll even donate for that! What say you Fr. Hollowell?
DeleteOh, I watched it. Endured it would be better words. Thank you for demonstrating that you did not actually research any of the subjects you interviewed and decided to place in the movie.
Deleteso you would discredit these people's stories that we interviewed?
DeleteOnly if you can prove they weren't actors and it all wasn't scripted.
Deletecan you prove to me that the people who claim that having same-sex sex makes them happy aren't actors and that their statements aren't scripted?
Deleteby the way, your answer to my question is that you DO discredit their testimony until, what, you speak with them directly? How do you go about believing anything "isn't scripted"?
Delete"With deep respect for all our brothers and sisters, we nevertheless see no basis in law or in nature for any definition of marriage that seeks to expand it beyond that of a covenant between one man and one woman."
ReplyDeleteThis point is really moot. Reason being these Bishops can't see "any basis in law", is because they know zip, zero, zilch, nothing about constitutional law, case law, the law itself or how to interpret it, or apply case law, constitutional law and the law itself to this particular judge's ruling. Why is that? Because I HIGHLY DOUBT any of them have attended law school....much less take the LSAT test(Law School Admission Test) and earned a law degree and passed the Indiana State Bar Exam. Now, IF they know something about the law, they know just enough to be dangerous and that's probably pushing it. I bet the judge in this particular case knows just about as much about the Bible as the Bishops know about law.
the bishops of Indiana know nothing about the law??? That is what we call hyperbole
DeleteWell then I guess they should add their names to the list of court appointed attorneys, that way they can defend clients charged with a crime with their vast array of legal knowledge.
DeleteAmen & Alleluia. This also needs to be preached from the pulpit in our churches. Sadly, many Catholics have been poorly taught or misinformed. We can thank the Nancy Pelosi's of the world for that. Bob H
ReplyDelete