NJ Bishops defend true marriage

I note with interest at the National Catholic Register (the Catholic one) that the bishops of New Jersey have issued a statement about same-sex “marriage”.

New Jersey Bishops Release New Statement on Marriage
Same-sex ‘marriage’ ‘is not marriage and should not be treated as marriage,’ they say.

[...]

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:

[...]

Be sure to read the whole thing over there.

I think there is a political/social war brewing. Our bishops deserve our strong support.

There will be all manner of bullying and intimidation applied to dioceses, bishops, priests. They need your prayers and support. People who hate the Church and her message about the dignity of human life in all aspects will try to silence bishops and priests. They are bullies and their threats and attacks must be resisted.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to NJ Bishops defend true marriage

  1. JohnE says:

    From the article:
    ‘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)].” ‘

    I agree that we shouldn’t redefine the term “marriage”. But it sounds like New Jersey has essentially made another term, “civil-union”, which is treated no differently than marriage. The real battle has already been lost. I think this is the strategy of those trying to dismantle marriage: Push to redefine marriage, “settle” for the term “civil-union” which has all the same benefits and legal recognition as marriage (game over), use the term “marriage” anyway when referring to civil unions, then finally (and optionally) push to redefine the term “marriage” to include the obsolete term “civil unions” in order to avoid any confusion that there’s actually any difference and to save printing costs. Or not, since the battle has already been won two steps ago.

  2. Supertradmum says:

    Praise God for this. Part of the problem are the Catholic parents who have caved in to supporting gay lifestyles and gay “marriages” rather than standing up to their own children. I have witnessed this happening, even with a permanent deacon, who had two adult children become gay, one a man and one a woman, and changed his mind about the issue, rather than face the pain in his own family. That one died of AIDS did not change his mind, and that the other is openly living with her “wife” caused him and his wife to change their stance, in opposition to the Church’s teaching. He was removed from teaching in the diocese after several years of disobedient teaching.

    I ran into this in catechesis, where parents refused to accept the teaching of the Church because of their children’s defection. This is a toleration of evil. I recently had a family I know, all Irish Catholics, split over this issue. Until Catholic are willing to suffer the Cross and accept that these lifestyles are evil, we shall have civil war within the Church. There, simply, has not been enough teaching on this and God bless the bishops, such as those in New Jersey, who take the Catholic stand boldly and publicly.

  3. Darren says:

    As a New Jerseyan I am usually pretty proud of our bishops. They definitely need our prayers. I know that Bishop O’Connell of Trenton (my diocese) has had much to suffer since he was ordained a bishop in 2010 and then officially became our bishop in December 2010 upon the retirement of Bishop Smith. The devil is really attacking him… Bishop Seratelli of Paterson has had some very good articles in the “Bishop’s Corner” of the Catholic News Agency website, such as this on on this topic:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=1848

    I’ll surely give this NCR article a very very good read tonight. I can only wish it would appear in the major NJ secular newspapers like the Star Ledger or the Asbury Park Press (the APP being a paper that will often carry articles of religions events, practices, etc on the front page – in a good light).

  4. mamajen says:

    I have a great deal of compassion and admiration for homosexual men and women who bear their IMMENSE cross and live a chaste life according to God’s will. I am saddened when so many of the “good Catholics” I know make fun of homosexuals, mock their mannerisms, judge them, etc. People too easily forget that having weakness is not a sin, ACTING on it is. We all have something.

    I am sorry to admit that my mind has been confused at times as I have tried to reconcile loving these people with what God teaches us about homosexual behavior. But recently I had a realization that it is all rather simple. To love somebody is to want to help that person reach heaven. We can talk about all the ways in which homosexual “marriage” is bad for families and society, but for me it all comes down to this: to support any kind of union of a same sex couple is to encourage those two people to sin. I thought to myself, “Well, what if they vow to live a chaste life together?” Sounds great in theory, but how could I support or encourage a situation that would place them under great temptation every single day? That’s not love.

    I love the homosexual people I know, and that is why I am 100% opposed to same sex marriage or anything of the sort. Homosexual people who manage to overcome their weaknesses and desires to live in accordance with God’s will are an inspiration for all of us, and that strength of character is what should be encouraged, not giving in to weakness and temptation. I understand the Church’s stance on homosexuality and will do what I can to support it.

  5. mamajen says:

    Support the Church that is, not homosexuality. In case I wasn’t clear.

  6. Springkeeper says:

    If I had a Bishop, I would suppot him. Ours was politely asked to retire and almost a year later we still don’t have one. Soon enough…

  7. AnnAsher says:

    I have wondered if the answer isn’t to get government out of marriage all together?

  8. Supertradmum says:

    AnnAsher

    It used to be like that before the marriage laws were adopted in Europe in order to take power away from the Church, all, of course, in the name of codifying marriage. If you look at the history of marriage, there were no civil rules until after the Protestant Revolt and the Enlightenment, both which desired to minimize the importance of the Catholic Church in Europe. You can look up the history of civil marriages, but just a few dates show you how late a development this was, and all because, mainly, of Lutheranism. John Knox in Switzerland, 1556 or thereabouts; Lutheran Germany before shortly before 1556 or so; in France, the Revolution ended the Church’s hegemony over marriage with the compulsory civil marriage act of 1792; and England’s civil law was not until 1836. The Protestants did not see marriage as a sacrament and therefore took it out of the religious life and put it into civil codes. If there had been no Protestant Revolt, we most likely would not have had the laws governing civil marriages. We are so used to thinking in terms of the State having this right, we forget how recent the development really is.