I’d like to call your attention to an article in the Washington Post by me in cooperation with the Archdiocese of Washington. The article refutes an earlier article by two individuals, named below who claimed that somehow, despite clear teaching from the Church to the contrary, that same sex “marriage” could be accepted by a Catholic. It cannot.
Below are excerpts. I am keeping my comments here to a minimum and turning comments off for this post since I would prefer if you would participate in the Post comment thread. Having submitted it to them, the article is really theirs at this point. Just a few excerpts below. The full article is here:
In an essay last week for On Faith/Local, Jeanine Gramick and Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry wrote to establish “A Catholic case for same-sex marriage.” Not surprisingly, the case they make is based on misinformed claims, defective moral theology and a reckless portrayal of Catholic Church history. Worse yet, they get the nature of the Church wrong too.
In March 2011, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, writing as the chairman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Doctrine, wrote that “in no manner is the position proposed by the New Ways Ministry in conformity with Catholic teaching, and in no manner is this organization authorized to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church or to identify itself as a Catholic organization.”
The Catholic Church is apostolic in nature, that is, it derives its faith, not from polls or a simplistic read of Church history, but from Jesus Christ himself….bishops, have a solemn obligation of preserving the unity of the Church and teaching the faith. As a Church deeply rooted in the Scriptures, we also draw our vision on this matter from a principled adherence to those Scriptures which we believe to be revealed by God and from which we are not free simply to depart.
…..On this basis, the Church and the state have no authority to redefine marriage.
….Marriage is a public relationship with a public significance. Marriage is not a universal right. One only needs to consider the details of the bill before the Maryland legislature to see that it prohibits a variety of relationships from marriage regardless of whether they are conventional or romantic in nature. Benefits such as medical decision making rights, tax exemptions and health benefits are already provided for in Maryland law; it is not necessary to redefine marriage in order to obtain these benefits.
….Marriage separated from its purpose of the union of one man and one woman and the procreation of children has detrimental consequences. The bishops’ opposition to the redefinition of marriage is not discriminatory. The Church respects the dignity of every human being created in the image of God. Opposing same-sex marriage recognizes that those relationships are simply different from marriage.