NOM BLOG

Bishop Cordileone: Gay Marriage is Unjust to Children

 

Catholic News Agency:

The legalization of “gay marriage” in America, even on a civil level, is unjust to children and poses a threat to religious liberty, warned Bishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of Oakland, Calif.

“Marriage is the only institution we have that connects children to their mothers and fathers,” he said. “So really, the question is, do you support that institution?”

In a June interview with CNA, Bishop Cordileone, who leads the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, explained that Church teaching against the redefinition of marriage on a civil level as well as a sacramental level is a matter of justice.

“Marriage is about fundamental justice for children,” he said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

... Based on sound social science, this [New Family Structures] study complements common sense and “demonstrates what we’ve always known,” Bishop Cordileone said. “Children do best with a mother and a father.”

The bishop explained that this issue is of crucial importance because “we cannot have two different definitions of marriage simultaneously in the country.”

“Only one definition of marriage can stand,” he said. “This is not expanding the right of marriage. It’s changing the definition, or taking away something is essential to marriage – that it’s the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of the binding of the two and the procreation and education of the next generation of offspring.”

35 Comments

  1. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    No, eliasasm. We shouldn't equate homosexuals to serial killers anymore than we should equate Catholic priests to child molesters.

  2. Bryce K.
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

    "No, eliasasm. We shouldn't equate homosexuals to serial killers anymore than we should equate Catholic priests to child molesters."

    Hm, that sounds a bit dubious to me. After all, what percentage of RC priests have molested children? I don't think that high of a percentage of homosexuals are serial killers... haha.

  3. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    According to a survey by the Washington Post, over the last four decades, less than 1.5 percent of the estimated 60,000 or more men who have served in the Catholic clergy have been accused of child sexual abuse.

    I don't know the percentage of homosexuals who are serial killers, but according to the late Dr. Milton Helpern (who is considered the Father of Modern Forensic Science) the percentage of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experiences is over 43 percent.

    But not even that should be used as an excuse to hate on anyone, SHANE!

  4. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    Sick serial killers certainly never set themselves up as moral authorities. "Upon this rock shall I build my church" is what the RC church purports to be. They teach Christians God's word and moral and righteous behaviour. Their Bishops who oversaw the sexual abuse of children and who moved priest to other parishes where they could reoffend have no excuse. Their pope is the Vicar of Christ and these men of God who defiled these children of God cannot not claim they are the authority in raising and protecting children.

  5. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 8:59 pm | Permalink

    I agree, Shane/John. Catholic priests who have molested chidren and/or covered up for child molesters have no moral authority. But it is not fair to condemn and discredit the 98% of RC preists who had nothing to do with these reprehensible acts.

    I don't condemn or discredit whatever moral authority gays might claim based on the comparatively low number of homosexuals who are serial killers. Nor does anyone else here. Please don't indulge in the same injustice.

  6. eliasasm
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 9:34 pm | Permalink

    SoA, The difference between the priests and serial killers is that the priests and everyone right to the top knew about it and covered it up. Which means the whole church has no moral authority.Gays are the ones who had nothing to do with the reprehensible acts or serial killers.
    Never heard of any gays claiming moral authority.
    BTW, catholics are not the only ones funding NOM. Mormons do to and boy there is alot of covering up there, too.

  7. AM
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:08 pm | Permalink

    The American RC Church commissioned an independent study of the priest abuse scandal.
    Only 4% of priests were accused:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report

    As far as authority figures abusing our children?
    Perhaps you should look at our public schools:
    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/02/is_sexual_abuse_in_schools_very_common_.html

  8. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:24 pm | Permalink

    @son of adam

    "the percentage of serial killers who are known to have had homosexual experiences" does not mean these killers in adulthood identified as homosexuals.

    Medical literature reports "Adolescent boys form close friendships with same-sex peers and may experiment sexually with them usually to satisfy curiosity." These events would qualify as a homosexual experience in your survey. Some might even suggest prolonged sexual contact with a priest may also qualify as homosexual experience. Not all boys who have experimented become gay men.

  9. Son of Adam
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:32 pm | Permalink

    eliasasm, that claim is based on nothing more than conjecture. Like I said, only 1.5 percent of RC preists were child molesters and a minority of those in the church kept it a secret, especially from other RC preists. The less people who knew about this, especially within the church, the better the chance of keeping it from leaking out.

    This is just a rationalization to condemn an entire group for the misdeeds of a relatively small number, just because you hate them for disagreeing with you over an unrelated topic.

    And gays claim moral authority all the time with self righteous sanctimonious attitudes - especially you with all your baseless accusations of hate, fear, and ignorance.

  10. Dan
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:42 pm | Permalink

    The problem with assumptions is that they are usually wrong. The assumption many here are making that all NOM'ers are Catholic is no exception. 😉

    Actually, one doesn't have to be a person of faith at all to recognize the need to protect the definition of marriage for the greater good of our society.

  11. Shane Mahaffy
    Posted July 8, 2012 at 10:59 pm | Permalink

    Your survey of killers who have had "homosexual experiences" does not identify those who may have been sexually abused as boys or teens. These unwanted nor desired experiences foisted upon heterosexual youth we know can lead to depression, drugs, alcohol abuse and violence.

    "Victimizer-Feelings of great pain, rage, and loss of control can lead abuse victims to abuse others or act out violently in some way." Boys who experiment sexually with s-s peers do not turn into gay violent sadomasochistic killers.

  12. Diana
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:33 am | Permalink

    The bishop is right, of course. The Catholic Church is the only church really fighting for what is right and speaking out against the perversion spread by gays.

  13. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 4:33 am | Permalink

    "Medical literature reports "Adolescent boys form close friendships with same-sex peers and may experiment sexually with them usually to satisfy curiosity." These events would qualify as a homosexual experience in your survey. Some might even suggest prolonged sexual contact with a priest may also qualify as homosexual experience. Not all boys who have experimented become gay men."

    So you admit that homosexuality is not genetic or innate - that they are not "born that way?"

  14. Little Man
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 7:44 am | Permalink

    Scott Wooledge:

    If we thought your quotation from scripture and question were sincere, we could easily answer your question in a logical manner.

    For one, explain to me how you arrive at the topic of inter-faith marriage from 2 Corinthians 6. 'Yoked together' like two oxen means to you 'marriage'? You got a lot to learn. Maybe you like to pull carts all day long, but i don't.

    The Bible offers hope, not for same-sex pseudo-marriage, but for even better than that. Anyway, civil marriage, is... well, a civil matter. And we vote "No".

  15. eliasasm
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

  16. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    "Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right."

    But not the redefinition of it. Big difference.

  17. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    i.e. Baker vs. Nelson.

  18. OvercameSSA
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 11:10 am | Permalink

    When SCOTUS reasoned that marriage is a fundamental right, it was speaking about marriage of a man and a woman, not homosexuals.

  19. Publius
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    Bishop Cordileone is a man of good will who serves his church faithfully, who is untouched by scandal, and who writes and speaks with great moral intelligence. I write this as a non-Catholic. Numerous attempts have been made to hijack this thread rather than engage the Bishop’s arguments, and relatively few of the comments address what Bishop Cordileone actually said.

  20. eliasasm
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:40 pm | Permalink

    SoA #66,

    You said marriage is not a civil right but the SC says it is and to deny anyone a civil right is unAmerican and pure hate.

    And Overcame, the SCOTUS did not differenciate between hetero and homo yet you do. Hate.

  21. Son of Adam
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

    "You said marriage is not a civil right but the SC says it is and to deny anyone a civil right is unAmerican and pure hate."

    Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm.

    "the SCOTUS did not differenciate between hetero and homo"

    Again, see Baker vs. Nelson.

  22. Scott Wooledge
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

    Seriously LIttle Man, you think by "yoke together" Corinthians is warning not to pull a cart with someone of other faith?

    OK.

    So the Bible condemns pulling a cart with a person who is unbeliever of the Christian God, it's OK to marry them is your point?

  23. John Noe
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    Yes as always we need to put the children first. Thank you for this blog as this is why we are in this battle.

  24. John Noe
    Posted July 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm | Permalink

    62. Diana

    The bishop is right, of course. The Catholic Church is the only church really fighting for what is right and speaking out against the perversion spread by gays.

    C'mon now Diane their are plenty of people who are not Catholic who are also fighting for what is right. The evangelical faith is just as strong.

  25. Chairm
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 12:32 am | Permalink

    Shane Mahaffy's trollish remarks regarding the RC Church exemplify bigotry and the notion of projection.

    Parents would be well advised to not leave their children anywhere near the influence of a person whose public comments exemplify thusly.

    The Bishop could remove his collar and his words regarding the marriage idea would still ring with intellectual and moral authority.

    Shane fears this because his strategy is to avoid moral and intellectual accountability for the content of his remarks. Maybe that is due to cowardice or perhaps feebleness or perhaps something overshadowing his soul. Pity him, readers, but do not feel provoked by him.

    Stand firm. There are bigger matters than these petty taunts of SSMers.

  26. Daughter of Eve
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 1:55 am | Permalink

    Echoing Chairm, "wherefore, we heeded them not...."

  27. Paul Mc
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:48 am | Permalink

    S of A:
    The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case. There is no need to invoke the mutability argument here if at least SOME people are born that way.

    I remind you that is no proof that ALL people are born straight, nothing that could support solid proof of that exists. On the contrary there is a large and growing body if evidence that being gay is likely to be innate in at least some people.

  28. Paul Mc
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 6:54 am | Permalink

    The NFSS research referred to by the Bishops does not in fact conclude anything about the ability of LBGT to be good parents. It concludes
    Only that family structures are the strongest influence on child outcomes. The study is in fact the best piece of support yet for allowIng ssm fr Ye better improvement of children's well being for Ye many LBGT persons who are parents. Indeed, it is an argument for complete normalisation of LBGT couples wrt straight.

    As usual the Bishop comments on fields outside of his expertise. He should stick to theology and leave statistics to people like me who understand t-testst and and analysis of variance (relatively trivial actually in mathematical terms).

  29. tim
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Cordileone position is unjust to children and millions of families. And isn't remotely centered in reality.

  30. Son of Adam
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 10:20 am | Permalink

    "The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case. There is no need to invoke the mutability argument here if at least SOME people are born that way."

    Paul Mc, there is no scientific evidence of the existence of a gay gene, or that homosexuality is innate. Not even the American Psychological Association makes such a contention anymore.

    It makes just as much sense to say that the SOME people are born with deeply held religious beliefs just because you can find those who will never give them up no matter what the circumstances.

  31. eliasasm
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    SoA #71,

    "Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm."

    Pathetically ignorant response.

    "Again, see Baker vs. Nelson"

    Nothing federal about this.

  32. Son of Adam
    Posted July 10, 2012 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    "Then I guess you hate polyamorous groups and incestuous couples, eliasasm."

    >>Pathetically ignorant response.

    Care to tell me why, eliasasm? Or are you just mudsligning again?

    "Again, see Baker vs. Nelson"

    >>Nothing federal about this.

    In the case of Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that Minnesota law limited marriage to different-sex couples and that this limitation did not violate the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review, the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a federal precedent.

    Pamela R. Winnick, Comment, The Precedential Weight of a Dismissal by the Supreme Court for Want of a Substantial Federal Question: Some Implications of Hicks v. Miranda, 76 Colum. L. Rev. 508, 511 (1976) ("a dismissal by the Supreme Court is an adjudication on the merits ... a lower federal court must consider itself bound by the dismissal when a similar challenge comes before it")

  33. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc said: "The ones who experimented but left it behind were never gay. The ones who experimented and stuck with it were gay in any case."

    Ad hoc. You are not a serious commenter on that subtopic.

  34. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Paul Mc, you are not accurately representing the study and so your comments are off-target.

  35. Chairm
    Posted July 11, 2012 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

    Game, set, match to Son of Adam.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.