The following comes from a June 27 Catholic News Agency article by Matt Hadro and Adelaide Mena:
Friday’s Supreme Court ruling against the traditional understanding of marriage may pose huge obstacles to the free exercise of religion and conscience across the US, the nation’s bishops have said in response to the decision.
Though it is also unclear how the ruling will specifically affect Catholic individuals, families, businesses, and ministries, it is clearly far-reaching, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, chair of the U.S. bishops conference’s Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty, told EWTN News Nightly June 26. It will affect a myriad of marriage laws and regulations at the state and local levels.
“Today’s ruling does not just affect one law, but in fact hundreds if not thousands of federal, state, and local laws and regulations that implicate marriage, spouses, and so forth,” he said. People of faith who believe in the traditional understanding of marriage “ may very well see a difficult road ahead.”
Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the U.S. bishops conference, addressed some specific areas where controversies might arise, such as tax exemptions, employee benefits, employment, and school accreditation.
“We’ve seen already many of these disputes emerge in states that have already recognized same-sex marriage. We’ve seen them in states that have aggressive sexual orientation, gender identity, and anti-discrimination laws,” he commented.
There will likely be social consequences for supporters of the traditional understanding of marriage, Picarello added.
The Supreme Court’s decision “makes a nod in the direction of religious liberty but not enough of one,” Archbishop Lori said.
While it grants the right of religions to teach and advocate about marriage, the majority opinion says nothing of the free exercise of religion that is central to the First Amendment – and this is extremely problematic, the archbishop explained.
The free exercise of religion means the ability for people to live their religious beliefs while “interacting with the broader society,” Archbishop Lori continued. For the majority of the court to omit this in its discussion of religious freedom could “give rise to a lot of legal controversies,” he warned.
“As believers, we should be prepared, whatever the cost is, to bear witness to our faith. To do it lovingly, but also to do it truthfully and to do it persistently.”
Catholics should take heart that this is not the first time they have faced the prospect of persecution in the U.S., Archbishop Broglio added.
“This wouldn’t be the first time that we’ve experienced ostracism for our beliefs. All you have to do is go back to the 19th century with the Know Nothings and the reactions there,” he said.
“So we survived that. We’ll survive this.”
[Editor’s note] The full statement of Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB news release) follows:
Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.
The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.
Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.
I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.
Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.
Today it was announced that in Billings, Montana, an already married Fundamentalist Mormon man applied for a marriage license to marry a second wife. It was denied. He may sue. About two weeks ago, in Thailand, three people were legally married. Now that SCOTUS has ruled that homosexuals can marry, this will lead to all sorts of variations of marriage. Five Catholics on the SCOTUS voted to allow gay marriage.
Hmmm, I don’t believe Justice Ginsberg is Catholic. I don’t believe Justice Kagan is either. I don’t think Justice Breyer is either.
So of the 5 justices who voted for same sex marriage, a majority are Jewish. Not Catholic.
Can you please check your facts before you post.
I think you are mistaken. The ruling was 5-4, and the only Catholic votes in the majority were those of Justice Kennedy and Justice Sotomayor. All other Catholic justices dissented.
Barack Hussein Obama spot-lighted the exterior of the White House with the “gay” rainbow colors the night of the SCOTUS ruling. This was an insult to everyone who opposes homosexual “marriage.”
Time to take those quote marks off marriage. You have not lost marriage. You have not felt God’s wrath come upon you. What you have gained is millions of additional people affirming the beauty of love and marriage. Rejoice in the love of God for all!
Sorry, Jim. The quotes remain. In the words of Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s daughter, many, many of us will not obey or acknowledge same-sex “marriage.”
Marriage is the life-long, exclusive union of a man and a woman.
Yeah, but it was a really nice gesture of recognition to those who don’t oppose marriage equality and civil rights.
Remember what the rainbow is. God was sorry that he made man because nothing man’s heart conceived was anything but evil. So he destroyed every man and every creature on earth except for one righteous man and his family and 2 of every animal. After the cleansing flood water receded, the righteous man made a sacrifice to God and God made a covenant with the man to never again destroy the earth by flood. The rainbow is the sign of that covenant. Whenever you see a rainbow (flag or otherwise), be sure to thank God for his promise and offer your sacrifice of praise to Him and renew your intention to be a righteous person who lives in a manner pleasing to God.
This article quotes AB Lori: “The free exercise of religion means the ability for people to live their religious beliefs while “interacting with the broader society,”
Actually that is false. The first amendment guarantee of religious liberty guaranteed that you can worship in your church as you see fit, and govern your church affairs as you please, but it has never been interpreted to mean that you can violate civil laws in the public sphere. To claim that religion grants you immunity from following civil law would be a violation of that very second amendment’s guarantee of separation of Church and State.
Yes YFC we have a duty to violate laws that are contrary to Christ’s ,,, I know whose side you will fall on…..
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
YFC, the 1st amendment does not guarantee only “freedom of worship”. That’s the limited standard enforced by Nazi Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union. You are drinking the Kool-Aid. Rather, our jurisprudence holds that neither federal nor state laws can burden the free EXERCISE of religion (“exercise” not being limited to church attendance, but also including the right to practice one’s faith in daily life) except as burdened by laws of such general applicability as zoning laws,etc.
At least, that’s what they taught me in Constitutional Law courses in law school.
YFC, the Second Amendment is about the right to keep and bear arms.
Not sure where you get your facts, but pretty much everything that you wrote is grossly inaccurate, particularly after the Hosanna/Tabor decision. It has only been in the last decade that anyone has interpreted religious liberty to mean governance of church affairs and mere “freedom of worship”. This is contradicted by both the Bill of Rights and the arguments set forth in the Federalist papers. But I would love to hear your explanation of what the second amendment (right to bear arms, genius) has to do with the separation of church and state.
YFC’s is a flawed, constricted, un-Catholic, and minimalized view of religious freedom. The free exercise of religious conscience, which the Second Vatican Council has espoused, is a BIG part of religious freedom. That is what this guy has missed. For example: let’s say the civil law violated the religious conscience of administrators at a Catholic adoption agency. They therefore had to close rather than go against their conscience. Then the state has effectively constricted the ability of those administrators to freely exercise their religion–for religious freedom is not only the ability to pray in our Churches, but also the freedom to act upon the CENTRAL TENET of our Christian faith which is TO LOVE. For many lay people,…
to love is expressed in participation in social, charitable organizations.
It is a good question – where do we go from here. The entire “gay issue” has been raised to a civil rights issue; you can’t discriminate against gay people, The Church teaches that we must welcome everyone. Do we? Christ said we must love everyone. Do we? Matthew’s Gospel says that we must go out and teach the faith. Do we? If a same-sex couple attends our Mass on Sunday, we should welcome them. Do we? (how would we know?) How do we as a Church behave in a world that says that same-sex marriage is the law of the land? I know that I haven’t presented one answer to any question, but I also know that over the next couple of years we will have to grapple with these issues and that we could use some leadership from our Bishops…
What do we do now, as Catholics, in our own families? What do we do when our kids announce that they are gay? When they tell us they will marry their same-sex lover? When our grand-children make the same announcements? When they ask to have their adopted children baptized? When the grand-kids are denied admission to a parochial school? When they are bullied at school? When same-sex couples attend Mass every week and then ask to have their kids in the First Communion class? What do we do now?
Bob One its very simple…its Christ or Chaos….if our family chooses to turn their backs on Him we can follow them straight to Hell or remain steadfast in Faith…The time decide is now….. It seems you have been very confused by the spirit of Vatican 2 and a poor understanding of True Catholic teaching….Same Sex couples should not offered or receive communion…
Canisius, what about heterosexual couple who live together, but unmarried? Do we banish them too? What should we do if one of our children decides to marry their same-sex partner? Do we banish them from the family, not attend the “wedding”, refuse to sit with them in Church? What do we do when they want to have their innocent child Baptized? Do we banish them from the presence of God? What about your daughter/son who is divorced but remarries? Do you banish them from Thanksgiving dinner? Where do we go from here?
“Canisius, what about heterosexual couple who live together, but unmarried?” Tell them straight to their face convert or get out
” What should we do if one of our children decides to marry their same-sex partner?” Convert or get out
” What about your daughter/son who is divorced but remarries? ” Follow Church teaching
Where do we go from here? Christ or Chaos…anything else is irrelevant
Again with that stupid mindless arguement with the deceptive view of the so called “spirit of V2” analogy. True understanding of Catholic teaching is not that faulty conclusion but when the truth is that one knows that true Catholic teachings, they will not conclude that its a V2 spirit, no not at all. Its ignorant to use such an arguement. Its an insult to many who are sincerely faithful and truly practice the mission of V2. Anyone of bad will from within the church or those who are in schism in anyway will use any excuse to not grow but will only focus on deceptive theologies, deceptive conclusions. I understand it can be misleading even good people like Canisius, but he has been told to stop spreading that false notion.
Bob One, You say “if you are gay, you’re gay. Your life options do not include the priesthood. You can still get married and have children but you need to be honest with your spouse. Your best choice may be a single life devoted to God.”
You say “You have a same-sex lover? You need to stop that right now and get to confession.”
You say “If you contract a civil marriage it is a mortal sin.”
You say, “What time is the baptism?”
You say “I am sorry, but you can always home school.”
You say, “That is wrong, You need to tell your teacher.”
You say “I look forward to your first communion. I remember mine…..”
The Church teaches that we must welcome everyone. Do we? If they demand we accept their sins NO!!!
Christ said we must love everyone. Do we? If they are agents of Hell NO!!!
If a same-sex couple attends our Mass on Sunday, we should welcome them. Do we? NO!
Yes Bob One we could use leadership from the so called Shepherds who have abandoned the flock for so long. Leadership requires courage and most of them do not have it. They would rather get along with the world than try to convert, they love endless “dialogue” with a culture that hates Christ and His Church. This is what should be done.. hunker down form separate communities from this corrupt rotten culture, to catacombs, preach the Truth on Christ’s terms not the…
Where do we go from here? = “Francis, go rebuild my Church which is falling into ruins.”
As the leadership of Pope Francis goes and the leadership of each diocese goes…the world goes AND so did the Supreme Court. As long as our bishops keep enabling and protecting the wolves in sheep’s clothing among them, then words about speaking the truth RING HOLLOW!
‘Jesus didn’t care about being nice or tolerant ‘
“There is no shortage of heresies these days. If you want to adopt some blasphemous, perverted, fun house mirror reflection of Christianity, you will find a veritable buffet of options. You can sift through all the variants and build your own little pet version of the Faith. It’s Ice Cream Social Christianity: make your own sundae! (Or Sunday, as it were.)
“And, of all the heretical choices, probably the most common — and possibly the most damaging — is what I’ve come to call the Nice Doctrine. We’re best friends like friends should be. With a great big hug, and a kiss from me to you, won’t you say you love me too? Actually, wait, sorry, that’s from the original Barney theme song.
God help us. We’ve turned the Son of God into a purple dinosaur puppet.”
The USCCB failed to publicly excommunicate pro-abortion Justice Brennan so we now have same- marriage being legal. They must now publicly excommunicate Justice Kennedy or close shop..
See below the youtube evidence that has been taking place for many years. The priest who was sent to give an appearance of correction to Father Barney, is the same person who got to select the very unattractive Tabernacle for Christ Cathedral and the same priest who wrote a supportive bulletin of Father Timothy Radcliffe. Wake up and smell the dinosaur dung. As the Barney’s go the Supreme Court went.
So the USCCB should hold ‘religious veto power’ over Catholic Supreme Court Justices who make decisions that the USCCB does not agree with? Why not make it simpler. Have the USCCB brief every potentially controversial case. That way the Court would know what the decision should be.