 
February 2010
13:10 GMT-05:00
|
||||||||
|
Bishop Murphy strongly corrects Catholic county official on same-sex 'marriage'
 Bishop William Murphy / Thomas R. Suozzi
Related articles:
.- The about-face on homosexual “marriage” accomplished by Thomas Suozzi, a Catholic who serves as the executive of Nassau County, New York, has drawn a strong rebuke from Bishop William Murphy. In his statement, the bishop spoke of the real meaning and a purpose of marriage “that homosexual relationships cannot fulfill.” “The logic of Mr. Suozzi’s argument is difficult to discern,” Bishop Murphy said. “It seems that he has become convinced that because he has met homosexual persons who have suffered discrimination, they now have a 'right' to insist that the state re-define their private sexual relationships and give such the term of marriage.” Bishop Murphy then addressed the issues of “employment benefits, life and health insurance and inheritance laws,” observing that “none of these require that homosexual relationships between consenting adults need to receive the state’s blessing declaring them marriage.” Noting Suozzi’s claim that civil unions are not sufficient because they do not provide “equality” for gay couples, Murphy explained that marriage has “a meaning and a purpose that homosexual relationships cannot fulfill.” “Whatever may be the intensity of a relationship between two persons,” Bishop Murphy reminded, “it cannot become what it is not.” “Some may find all kinds of positive qualities to such relationships but it cannot be re-defined into marriage. To use an absurd example, no matter how much a man might like so to do, he cannot give birth to a child and if he is blessed to be the father of his child, he cannot claim he is really the mother.” This meaning and purpose demand “that the sexual construct of human beings be respected.” “The sexual reality of male and female is such that they are related to each other and to each other only in a complementarity that alone can naturally create new human life,” the bishop stated. Thus, marriage is not a right that can be claimed by a homosexual couple. Bishop Murphy went on to say that civil society can regulate marriage because it is “the most basic social unit” and therefore a key component “in ensuring a healthy society as a whole.” “Other private sexual relationships are immaterial to the state because they have no impact on the common good which the state exists to foster and protect,” he said. Bishop Murphy concluded by saying that Church teaching on homosexuality is very clear. “While homosexual orientation is a neutral reality on a moral level, homosexual acts are not morally neutral. They are wrong and they are sinful,” he stated. Calling on Suozzi and all Catholics to remain faithful to Church teaching, the New York prelate emphasized that such teachings are “non-negotiable,” and that only true adherence to the Lord will bring real “freedom, justice, joy and peace.” Subscriber comments:
Published by: Emmanuel Nyitsse
Nigeria 06/28/2009 03:08 PM EST
Bishop Murphy is ever blessed for declaring the truth which is bitter but must be aired. I vehemently object to homosexual relationship because it is an ungodly practice; not even animal do it. Bishop Murphy keep it up!
Published by: Niles
San Francisco, CA 06/26/2009 12:56 AM EST
Thank you Ray from Houston!
You are a rare voice of logic here! Most EU countries have both civil & religious marriage, giving equal/civil rights for gay & lesbian folks to marry, yet the decline of Western Civilization has not or will not occur because of it! +Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us
Published by: Jason Phillips
Lubbock, TX 06/25/2009 09:31 AM EST
To Jack Swan:
You are wrong about the Bishop's "error". Homosexual orientation is not a sin. It IS however a disorder. Calling homosexual appetites disordered is not the same as saying they are morally wrong. This is because temptation itself is not a sin, but an act of the devil. Only when we act on those temptation and fulfill selfish desires are sins committed. Just wanted to clarify :)
Published by: Ant
Boston, MA USA 06/24/2009 02:39 PM EST
“The sexual reality of male and female is such that they are related to each other and to each other only in a complementarity that alone can naturally create new human life,” the bishop stated. Thus, marriage is not a right that can be claimed by a homosexual couple."
No marriage law in the country stipulates that a couple must be willing or able to procreate in order to marry, otherwise, a good number of childless married couples would have their marriages nullified by the state. People seem not to understand what it is that gay couples want. They don't CARE about your religious idea of marriage. They don't want to force your church to accept anything it doesn't want to. There are already plenty of churches, temples and synagogues who will marry them. What they want is access to CIVIL marriage, which doesn't stipulate anything about having kids. Even a straight couple who have sterilized themselves can marry legally. "civil society can regulate marriage because it is “the most basic social unit” and therefore a key component “in ensuring a healthy society as a whole.” And do you suppose that gay couples have nothing to offer society as a whole? Isn't it better to encourage committed, civilly sanctioned unions between them? Gay people pay their taxes, teach your kids, bag your groceries, fight your wars and perform your surgeries. They contribute to your society, and they should have the same right to marriage as anyone else.
Published by: Ant
Boston, MA USA 06/24/2009 02:33 PM EST
"they now have a 'right' to insist that the state re-define their private sexual relationships and give such the term of marriage.”
No one is "re-defining" marriage. Marriage will not change for those straight couples who are already married; their marriages are in no way re-defined. Civil marriage is being EXTENDED to include same sex couples, not re-defined. Access to civil institutions (such as civil marriage) IS a right that every citizen has by default. And why reduce the relationships of gay people to merely "private sexual relationships"? Don't you think that gay people have relationships that also involve love and commitment? “none of these require that homosexual relationships between consenting adults need to receive the state’s blessing declaring them marriage.” The state doesn't give "blessings", they bestow rights and responsibilities. Churches and temples give blessings, and many of them already give their blessings to committed same sex couples. "Murphy explained that marriage has “a meaning and a purpose that homosexual relationships cannot fulfill.” " And what "purpose" would that be? No definition of civil marriage in this country states that any marriage must have any specific "purpose". The purpose of any couple's marriage is up to THEM to decide. The state only allows them to protect their marriages, whatever they may be. No couple has to agree to anything except to be legally and socially responsible for each other.
Published by: Little Mary
CT USA 06/24/2009 06:41 AM EST
Kudos to you Bishop Murphy for speaking out so strongly on behalf of traditional marriage. What a fantastic analogy between homosexual marriage and a man wanting to give birth to a child and call himself mother. It may be a strong and deep desire, but it is not natural and can never happen.
Bishop Murphy, may God continue to bless you with wisdom and courage and I pray that all Bishops will follow your lead especially those here in CT.
Published by: rev fr samuel benjamin anim
ghana 06/24/2009 06:22 AM EST
i would like to be send with books on sex sex marriage and its effects on both the bindividual and society.
Published by: gary
Lawrence, Ks 06/23/2009 10:39 PM EST
Bishop Murphy did not "correct" Thomas Suozzi on this matter. Mr. Suozzi is well aware of Catholic teaching on gay marriage. However Mr. Thomas obviously does not believe that this is a church issue, but rather one of civil rights. In no states that have allowed gay marriage is there any law which also states that any church must recognize these marriages as valid. As a straight Catholic I would vehemently protest any attempt by the state to force churches to validate or sanction these "marriages". Marriage is a sacrament in several churches in addition to the Catholic church, and certainly opposed in most others. I truly do not believe however that as such these marriages are in any way a threat to the Catholic church, or any other for that matter.
Published by: G. De Feo
Brooklyn, NY, USA 06/23/2009 08:12 PM EST
Mr. Souzzi wants the governorship of New York so badly that he's willing to do this to garner the gay and liberal vote, though he's a Republican, it seems.
Published by: George Alexa
Fairfax Station, VA 06/23/2009 07:59 PM EST
What is it with Catholic politicians? I demand that Suozzi be banned from receiving the Sacraments until he publicly repents! And if you are of another faith persuasion, you have not right to comment on the sacraments! You already deny what we hold true!
Published by: BC2
New York 06/23/2009 07:51 PM EST
From a friedly Catholic neighbor:
Thank You for your words, I hope they are heeded and accepted with honor, they deserve it.
Published by: Jack Swan
New York, NY 06/23/2009 06:39 PM EST
Great statement by the Bishop. However, I have to point out that he makes an erroneous statement about the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. A homosexual orientation or desire is not "a neutral reality on a moral level." The notion that homosexual desires are morally neutral themselves has been rejected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the document "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons". It is not just the acts that are morally disordered, but the desire itself to commit them is specifically characterized by the CDF as a "disordered sexual inclination". The US Bishops document "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination" also makes clear that the desire for sexual relations with a person of the same sex is not at all morally neutral, but is itself a disorder. Just thought I would point that out, so that nobody is confused by the Bishop's error.
Published by: steve abril
TAMARAC 06/23/2009 03:11 PM EST
Bishop Murphy deserves our full support for speaking out.
Published by: MTB
New Haven, CT 06/23/2009 01:51 PM EST
The Bishop should also understand that the state is not a Catholic Community, but a diverse background of many religons and cultures. Additionally many Catholic families are the typical 2.4 American household. The use of contraceptives and birth control is also looked down on by he church, yet, I don't hear him yelling at his flock to multiple beyond their ability to feed, clothe, and protect.
The Letivicus verse which calls homosexuality an abomination also calls lobster the same, yet I've seen many a pastor belly up to the table and enjoy that feast. The church isn't protesting divorce lawyers, even though the dogma strictly prohibits divorce, and anyone remarried is simply living a life of sinful adultery. Yet, the good bishop has no other words for those politicians which are remarried or divorced. With the problems the church as seen, embezzelment of church funds, settlements which are estimated to be in the billions of child molestation, I would think the good bishop would have something more important to do than threaten someone's membership in their faith over a difference in opinion on church teachings when it clearly operates without taxation due to the Seperation of Church and State. I pray for the bishop and hope that as he continually learns from the bible that the message is clear, Love God above all others, and love one another as he has loved us.
Published by: dAVID LARSEN
scituate Mass. USA 06/23/2009 12:48 PM EST
The virgin birth of Jesus through his Mother Mary,is proof that the power of the Holy Spirit is the creative force. Divinity chose a Mother and became incarnate through the power of the Holy Spirit. Jesus who as son of the Father has joined all to God through the power of the Holy Spirit by baptism. At the baptism of Jesus,Jesus is baptized by John and the Holy spirit is seen to be upon him. All through Faith who believe in the name of Jesus are also married to God,in Christ,through the Holy Spirit at their own baptism. Holy Marriage,is a joining through the sacrament of Marriage blessed by the Holy Spirit,that joins a man and a woman together at the alter of the loving sacrifice of Christ. Children who are the product of this Holy Marriage are to be brought up by their parents to serve God in Christ's name.
Gay marriage is not the same as a Holy marriage. Bishop Murphy along with the whole Catholic Church is correct. Marriage can't ever become what it isn't. Romance can't be confused with the commitment to a Holy Marriage,that produces the fruit of a womb of a mother,that can be raised by a loving father and mother,that God our creator has been given the Holy honor to bless with his grace. This sacrament is to a very large degree Eucharistic. In the action of a Holy Marriage,human kind is joined to God not only by body ,blood and soul,but through grace in Divinity through Christ.
Published by: Leticia Velasquez
Canterbury, CT 06/23/2009 12:15 PM EST
As a former member of Bishop Murphy's diocese, I commend his firm leadership on this issue. I await similar leadership in Connecticut where Senator Chris Dodd has done an about face, now approving of same sex marriage.
Catholic moral values are eternal, they do not change with fickle public opinion.
Published by: Ray
Houston 06/23/2009 07:39 AM EST
I find it both amusing and very sad that a Catholic bishop would attempt to correct a government official. The Bishop is certainly entitled to his opinion on what religious marriage entails in his church, but not all Christians agree (clearly, since some churches DO perform and bless same-sex unions). But religious marriage, and its rules and boundaries, only apply to people inside that religion. Civil marriage affects all citizens and its laws must apply to all people equally. The Bishop can run his church as he sees fit, but he is grossly out of line to expect everyone else to conform. Religious marriage and civil marriage are two different things.
Published by: Paul Cortese
MD 06/23/2009 07:10 AM EST
Thank you for just telling it like it is Hon. Bishop.
ADD A COMMENT (Your e-mail will NOT be published):
* Thanks for your comments. The number of messages that can be online is limited. Length should not exceed 1500 characters. CNA reserves the right to edit messages for content and tone. Comments and opinions expressed by users do not necessarily reflect the opinions or beliefs of CNA. CNA will not publish comments with abusive language, insults or links to other pages. ADVERTISING |
Latest news:
12:56 pm | Venezuelan cardinal calls for new evangelization of country's capital 11:11 am | International congress to focus on priestly identity and celibacy 07:10 am | Former Saints star says Super Bowl victory revealed a ‘team with destiny’ 06:01 am | DC ruling favors same-sex ‘marriage’ over religious freedom, archdiocese says 04:43 am | South African Bishops Conference to care for 60,000 AIDS patients Related news :
Lawsuit filed to overturn decision barring D.C. same-sex ‘marriage’ referendum New Hampshire law marginalizes supporters of traditional marriage, bishop says New York Catholic bishops strongly oppose legalized same-sex 'marriage' New Hampshire lawmakers reject amended same-sex ‘marriage’ bill Get CNA News on your email:
Resources
 First Reading:
Psalm:
   Gospel:
Saint of the Day
Homily of the day
|
ADVERTISING
Place your ad here |
||||||
|
||||||||
