Is it just me or do other Catholics also get
as excited as I do, when I read and see our bishops standing up and defending
our faith. It re-energises me and makes me want to do the same. It encourages
me to stand up proudly and shout from the rooftop: “I love Jesus and I am Catholic and I am proud of it!” Here is an example of one such recent event that got me this excited.
On Friday, 20 January 2012, the Catholic
bishops of New Jersey released a statement on marriage. The National Catholic
Register published the full statement today. You can read the full statement there,
or below: [Underlined is my emphasis]
A Statement by the Catholic Bishops of New Jersey
Marriage A Union
of One Man and One Woman
January 20, 2012
Marriage as a union of a man and a woman has its roots in natural law.
Throughout all of human history marriage has been held to be a union of man and
woman. Marriage as a union of man and woman existed long before any nation,
religion or law was established. Marriage which unites mothers and fathers in
the work of childrearing is the foundation of the family, and the family is the
basic unit of society.
Sadly, the institution of marriage is being challenged by a society so
concerned with individual freedom that some view marriage as a temporary or
disposable convenience. Now, there is even an attempt in the New Jersey
Legislature to pass a law that would change the very definition of marriage as
a union of one man and one woman.
As citizens, we must protect marriage as the union of one man and one
woman. Same-sex unions may represent a new and a different type of institution,
but it is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage.
What can you do to help protect marriage? Today, we ask all people of
good will to do three simple things. First, pray for all married couples and
all families. Second, reflect on this important question, “How can I help my
family and the families I touch to grow in hope, love, peace and joy.” Third,
we ask everyone to reach out to your neighbors, your legislators and the
governor with a simple message: “Preserve the definition of marriage as a union
of one man and one woman.”
To help everyone understand why marriage can only be a union between one
man and one woman, we offer the following facts:
Why should citizens care about the state’s definition of marriage?
Citizens must care about the government’s treatment of marriage because
civil authorities are charged with protecting children and the common good, and
marriage is indispensable to both purposes. Citizens have the right and the
responsibility to hold civil authorities accountable for their stewardship of
the institution of marriage. Citizens also have the responsibility to oppose
laws and policies that unjustly target people as bigots or that subject people
to charges of unlawful discrimination simply because they believe and teach
that marriage is the union of man and a woman.
Why should two individuals of the same sex be treated any differently
than married couples who cannot conceive children?
Marriage benefits society by bringing men and women, the two
complementary “halves” of the human race, together. Regardless of whether they
can conceive children, a man and a woman united in marriage reinforce the
importance of this ideal. By contrast, if the government insists that same-sex
unions are “equal” to unions of a man and a woman, the government will be
teaching not only that mothers and fathers are no longer necessary for
children, but also that uniting the sexes is no longer an important ideal.
Persons of same-sex orientation have the right to live as they choose, but they
do not have the right to redefine marriage for everyone by altering the civil
law.
Don’t single parents make a valuable contribution to family life? If so,
why should same-sex partners not be viewed the same way?
The stable, lifelong, loving relationship of a mother and father, found
only in marriage, provides the ideal conditions for raising and socializing
children. Marriage represents the way we teach and reinforce this ideal.
Of course, some children are raised in situations other than the
traditional two-parent family, and responsible, loving, single parents and
other family members make important and valuable contributions to the welfare
of these children. But supporting single-parent families, as a just and
compassionate society must do, is far different than deliberately creating
motherless and fatherless families and holding them out to be the same as
marriages.
But isn’t prohibiting same-sex “marriage” unjust discrimination?
No. We must always remember that every person has an inherent dignity.
Like all other human beings, our homosexual brothers and sisters are beloved
children of God. As a result, the Catholic Church affirms that they “must be
accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in this regard should be avoided” [Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 2358].
Clearly, the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be
defended, and everyone must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice,
oppression or violence against homosexual persons.
But it is not “unjust discrimination” to treat different things
differently. Same-sex unions are not, in fact, the same thing as the union of
one man and one woman in marriage. One type of union may ever generate
children; the other may never; one type of union respects and expresses the
inherent complementarity of man and woman; the other does not. Therefore,
treating one type of union as “marriage” and the other not is not only
permitted, but required. Indeed, it is treating this differentiation as bigotry
that constitutes an injustice.
Is same-sex “marriage” a civil right?
Same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right. A strong desire does not make
a civil right. Every man and every woman has a right to enter into marriage,
but marriage as an institution can only be between a man and a woman.
Governments do not have the power to define marriage otherwise, because it is a
permanent human institution that does not owe its existence to
governments.
In addition, same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right because same-sex
couples cannot fulfill the core public purpose of marriage: bringing men and
women into the only kind of union that can make new life and give children
mothers and fathers.
Would maintaining the definition of marriage as a union solely of one
man and one woman deny hospital visitation privileges to civil-union partners?
Would defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman take away any
benefits currently provided to civil-union partners by employers?
No. In New Jersey, the Civil Union Act already provides practical
rights, benefits and protections for persons who choose to establish
non-marital unions. As clearly stated in the Act:
“Civil-union couples shall have all of the same benefits, protections
and responsibilities under law, whether they derive from statute,
administrative or court rule, public policy, common law or any other source of
civil law, as are granted to spouses in a marriage [N.J. Statutes 37:1-31(a)].”
The act also provides that civil-union couples are entitled to the
benefits and protections of “laws relating to insurance, health and pension
benefits” [N.J. Statutes 37:1-32(e)]. In addition, the act prohibits an
array of unlawful employment practices by employers who do not fully implement
the act.
The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) Act, signed
into law by Governor Christie in December 2011 guarantees by law that all adult
patients have the right to designate a representative of their choice with the
power to convey specifically how the patient would like to be treated,
including in the event the patient loses the capacity to express their
preferences regarding life-sustaining treatments. The POLST Act even allows for
a patient to authorize the patient’s representative to revoke or modify the
patient’s decisions if the patient loses decision-making capacity.
Further, many organizations have approved “Advanced Directives for Health
Care” that allow individuals to designate anyone they wish as a health-care
decision-maker.
In short, there is no evidence for the claims that in New Jersey
same-sex couples are not able to assist in making health-care decisions
together with or for each other. That right is guaranteed by law.
Most Reverend John J. Meyers,
Archbishop, Diocese of Newark
Most Reverend David M. O’Connell, C.M.
Bishop, Diocese of Trenton
Most Reverend Joseph A. Galante
, Bishop, Diocese of Camden
Most Reverend Arthur J. Seratelli
, Bishop, Diocese of Paterson
Most Reverend Paul G. Bootkoski
, Bishop, Diocese of Metuchen
Most Reverend William C. Skurla
, Bishop, Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of
Passaic
Most Reverend Yousif B. Habash
, Bishop, Our Lady of Deliverance
Syriac
Catholic Diocese
No comments:
Post a Comment