Clear Catholic Teaching on Gay “Marriage”

Amazingly clear teaching on homosexual marriage from Bishop Olmsted in Phoenix, AZ.

….In a statement released on the Diocese of Phoenix’s website on August 10th, Bishop Olmsted wrote that the “misguided decision of Judge Vaughn Walker, striking down as unconstitutional the California Marriage Law called Proposition 8, cannot be passed over in silence.”

“Labeling homosexual ‘marriage’ as ‘a right’ is not an enlightened idea of the 21st century,” the bishop asserted. “It is a novel form of a resurrected falsehood from more than 2000 years ago. It will not stand the test of time, just as it cannot withstand popular opinion now.”

“In every state in our nation where this issue has been put to a vote of the people (31 of the 50), traditional marriage has won,” Olmsted noted. “It is only some activist judges, exercising raw judicial power over and against the will of the people, who have pushed their agenda of so-called ‘homosexual marriage.'” 

The bishop also warned that what “is at stake here is cultural sanity and viability. Defending the clear nature and purpose of marriage is not discrimination against homosexual persons.”

“Why did God create both men and women, not just one sex?” the bishop asked. “Is it really all that difficult to fathom that God had a plan for marriage, which He wove into the very fabric of human nature? This plan is so deeply embedded in our human nature that every culture in history has recognized it and enshrined and protected it in law and custom.”

“Marriage being exclusively between a man and a woman was not an idea created by these cultures but, rather, a truth received by them as something handed down from a higher authority,” the prelate underscored.

“We need to again recall the key distinction, when considering homosexuality, between the homosexual inclination on the one hand and homosexual acts on the other,” Bishop Olmsted said.

The Phoenix bishop also clarified that although Scripture and Christian tradition hold that homosexual acts are sinful, “persons with homosexual inclinations but who do not engage in homosexual acts are not guilty of sin at all. No more or less than other persons, Christ calls them to holiness of life, inviting them as He invites us all to take up our cross each day and follow after Him.”

“All who follow Christ are given the grace to live the virtue of chastity; and they can joyfully do so with a clean heart.”

Seeking ‘true happiness’ for those with same-sex attraction

“Love and truth go hand-in-hand,” the bishop continued. “Everyone who experiences true love knows this – we want those we love to know the truth. As Catholics, we want to love people authentically and not in a mediocre way that would ignore dangers in a person’s life out of a shallow concern for political correctness.”

“We need never worry that speaking the truth clearly and charitably is a violation of love,” he stressed.

“Both Church teaching and the study of reality, the natural law, show that homosexuality is an objective disorder – that is, it does not correspond to the God-given reality of the sexually differentiated human being.

“Therefore, to condone the homosexual lifestyle is never a move in favor of a person’s true happiness,”  Bishop Olmsted wrote. “Moreover, to change the legal and societal definition of the fundamental institution of marriage in order to suit an adult sexual preference is a selfish and irresponsible corruption of the truth.

“The truth is that the reason why the state cannot redefine marriage is because it never defined it in the first place; it is a truth received, not created. It is God who defined marriage.

“For the state to redefine marriage will certainly have a negative impact on love, especially for children, who suffer most when marriage is weakened,” he warned.

2 comments to Clear Catholic Teaching on Gay “Marriage”

  • John Chuchman

    Only one misguided is the tyrannical hierarch:
    That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8
    is irrelevant.
    Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote;
    they depend on the outcome of no elections.
    The ballot initiative violated the Constitution’s due process clause
    and its guarantee of equal treatment.
    There is no rational basis to exclude gays and lesbians
    from the institution of marriage.

    Supporters of the ban
    argue that the government has a rational reason
    to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples.
    They said because marriage is likely to result in children,
    the state wants to encourage both birth parents to raise their children
    within a stable household.
    Same-sex and opposite-sex couples are of equal quality.
    The evidence shows beyond any doubt that parents’ genders
    are irrelevant to children’s developmental outcomes.

    Supporters of the ban
    are clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality.
    Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis
    on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians,

    The evidence shows conclusively that a ban on gay marriage enacts,
    without reason,
    a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples.

    Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law.

    The idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman
    was an artifact of a foregone notion
    that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

    Rather than advancing it,
    the ban harms the state’s interest in equality.
    It mandates that men and women be treated differently
    based only on antiquated and discredited notions of gender.
    Based on evidence produced at the trial,
    same-sex marriage would have no impact on society
    or the institution of marriage.
    The state of California had no interest in waiting
    and no practical need to wait
    to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

  • John 6:54

    My Response to Mr. Churchman’s comments above

    …Fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote;…

    I would completely agree that Fundamental rights should not be submitted to a vote. But one can not assume that Marriage to someone of the same sex is a Fundamental Right. There is no law preventing someone with a homosexual from marriage with someone of the opposite sex which by definition is what marriage is.

    …the government has a rational reason to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. They said because marriage is likely to result in children, the state wants to encourage both birth parents to raise their children within a stable household…

    This is one small piece of the arguement it is not the crux of the matter.

    …Supporters of the ban are clearly motivated by moral disapproval of homosexuality. Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians…

    It’s more than just moral disapproval. It’s definitional. No one is denying rights to those who have a homosexual attraction, they have all the same rights as I including, but not limited to, the ability to marry someone of the opposite sex.

    …same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples…

    No one is preventing two people from loving each other, no one is making a judgement of inferior, equal, or superior. That is not the issue.

    …Tradition alone cannot form a rational basis for a law…

    Agreed as there have been bad traditions in time. Only a rational view of the natural law can be a basis for a law.

    …The idea of restricting marriage to one man and one woman was an artifact of a foregone notion…

    Marriage by definition is for one man and one woman. If it is not then what else should we open it up to? One Man and One Dog? One Woman and One Tree? The idea of calling two memember of the same sex married is insanity. Can I marry the Holy Bible? Why not I really love it?

    Lastly I’m not sure if the comments that Mr. Churchman posted were written by him. From the looks of it, it appears to have been copied and pasted into the comment box. I’m all for gather help in forming and spreading ideas, but it would be nice if authors of comments would use their own comments or atleast referenced where the text came from.