Search
-
Statement from Archbishop Aymond:
As Catholic Christians, we believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. This belief is rooted in Sacred Scripture, Natural Law and 2000 years of Christian Tradition. To change and redefine marriage will have ramifications for families now and in the future. I stand with the Catholic bishops of the United States as we had hoped there would have been another means of moving forward in society without redefining marriage and family life.
While we stand firm in this belief, as Christians we must extend respect to all and treat all of God's children with dignity even in disagreement. We cannot be disrespectful but always loving in witnessing our faith. Disrespect and hatred can never be condoned.
This is an historical moment in the United States. It gives us as Catholic Christians an opportunity to uphold the Sacrament of Marriage and the importance of family life.
Well, it happened.Like we thought it would.Like we knew it would, if we were being honest, keeping score, reading the tea leaves.I have not read the entirety of the Supreme Court of the United States's ruling Obergefell v. Hodges's 180-plus pages of Pope Francis is one thing; 103 of legalese is another.
The ruling legalizing same-sex marriage across the union follows a predictable fault line in thought: defenders of personal freedom (i.e. the fundamental right of an individual to make a decision regarding his or her happiness) v. defenders of natural law (i.e. that the physical-material world offering insight for and focus of our freedom).
The debate is obviously more nuanced than that — there are words that fill those 103 pages. But, as Catholics, we must distinguish between the debates of the nature and scope of government — particularly the judicial branch — and the nature and scope of theology. We have insight to offer on the government’s role to promote the common good of society, on the need for healthy and true checks and balances between branches, and on the wisdom of legal distinctions in associations of life.Those lines of argumentation can and should be expressed. They, however, are not central to our theological purpose. True and full and embodied love is. The heat of argumentation is no replacement for the fire of love.And the many quick-fired reactions we have already encountered certainly seem to be sizzling with things quite other than love.What does love demand?Firstly, no court can prove or disprove the validity of our stance in life. By this, I mean the legalization of same-sex marriage should not in our minds belittle the heroic, self-giving love witnessed throughout the membership in the Body of Christ, specifically in married couples. Security in the truthfulness of our position does not lead to the denigration of another’s, but rather the deeper living of our lives of faith.From this comes a second fundamental principle: we do not discriminate. Not based on Church membership or absence, not based on sinfulness or virtue, not based on like-minded starting points or quite divergent ones. For all the court nuance, we allow this to be a very black-and-white debate by our failure to extend charity to all our brothers and sisters. There is not a chasm separating the LGBT community and their supporters on one side from a homophobic mass on the other. At least there shouldn’t be. We can be confused and disappointed today, but not hateful. The Catechism refers to Vatican II’s Gaudium et spes here, noting: "Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.” We could even grab stronger footing from that Jesus fellow, one who continued to move to the margins to attract those longing for more.And there is a longing for more. We are hard-wired for it. Just read the conclusion of the majority decision, written by Catholic Justice Anthony Kennedy (on page 28, for those scoring at home:No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Longings, indeed. There is much therein that resonates with any living, breathing, loving person. We respect those urges, but disagree that a life outside of the marriage state is one bereft of love, one “condemned to live in loneliness.” Fr. Otis isn’t even a good cook, and I can find a lack of logic there. Love comes in many forms, all of which making demands that lead us higher, that make us more selfless, that inspire us beyond our impulses. Celibate love, then, needs just as much a dramatic witness as married love in the wake of today’s decision.
Finally, the nature of sacramental matrimony does not change here. Even in the most oppressive Doomsday scenarios imaginable (mine always include Dewey’s three cats, a heaping helping of Spam, and a mega-mall), the Church will continue to witness God’s sacramental love in the marriage between husband and wife.We have much wisdom to offer. May we not muddle that in our reactions or, more importantly, our lived love.
