Skip to comments.Staten Islanders react to Archbishop Dolan's statement banning gay marriage from Catholic churches
Posted on 11/05/2011 1:19:24 PM PDT by NYer
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- Following the spiritual lead of Pope Benedict, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan has issued an official statement banning gay marriage in Roman Catholic churches.
Supporters of the Marriage Equality Act were left to ponder why and whether his statement was politically motivated.
Archbishop Dolan issued a decree forbidding any priest or deacon from performing same-sex marriages. The unions cannot be done in any church building, hall or other property. The prohibition even extends to consecrated items such as chalices, vestments and liturgical books.
"The marital union between one man and one woman was universally accepted by civil law as a constitutive element of human society, which is vital to the human family and to the continuation of the human race," Archbishop Dolan said in the decree dated Oct. 18.
"In reversal of this tradition, the New York State Legislature recently enacted a law that recognized same-sex union as marriages in the State of New York. This law is irreconcilable with the nature and the definition of marriage as established by Divine law."
A complete version of the decree is listed under the pastoral tab at Archny.org.
The Marriage Equality Act permits same-sex civil unions while at the same time protecting the right of religious groups to choose against performing the marriages.
Rosemary Palladino, a Grasmere attorney, who attends weekly mass with her partner of 38 years, Marianne Brennick, wasn't surprised by the archbishop's stand on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"It would be wonderful to be able to get married in the Catholic Church but I don't expect it, I don't hope for it and I don't need it because we could get married in a civil setting," said Ms. Palladino, who intends to wed but so far has no definite plans.
A founder of Staten Island Stonewall, Ms. Palladino questioned why religious groups have involved themselves in the issue of civil marriage for same-sex couples.
"I think the whole issue of religious marriage was just an attempt to muddy the waters," Ms. Palladino said.
"The bill was not about making Catholic Churches or other churches perform marriages for same sex couples. It was about making civil marriage available to same-sex couples, regardless of what religion they follow or don't follow."
"What I don't understand is why religious organizations try to interfere with the civil rights of people as they have done in New York and California. I especially wonder how many of their members approve of the fact that their donations are being used to wage these legal battles."
Archbishop Dolan's decree has "no bearing on what city hall does," said State Sen. Diane Savino.
"Marriage is a sacrament, the church has a right to determine who they marry and who they don't," she added.
She was puzzled about why the archbishop felt a need to issue the decree.
"I guess he felt he had to clarify, I'm not sure why," Ms. Savino said.
"It's a house of worship, it's their right, otherwise, no comment," said Assemblyman Matthew Titone, who married his partner of 18 years, Giosue Pugliese, at Borough Hall in September.
Excellent! I wonder if this decree extends to other dioceses within the state of NY.
I wonder if liberals would view homosexuals burning down Catholic Churches the same way they viewed the burning of black churches?
It was a rhetorical question. I know the answer.
Catholics are the wrong kind of black people. :p
They are welcome to try. It might not work out well for them, though.
God bless Archbishop Dolan for laying down the Law!
What do these idiots expect the Catholic Church to do? It’s reassuring when a Bishop or Cardinal or the Pope reinforces teaching. Need more pro-abortion pols banned from the sacrament of communion and public pronouncements made about it.
Yeah, but it puts to rest the idea that you could have a civil ceremony within a Catholic Church because that's what you guys would have done, one little step at a time.
Marriage entries recorded the date and place of marriage. Information included the ages of the two parties, their residences, marital status, occupations, fathers, and even their fathers' occupations. Civil copies of marriage entries are duplicates of original church entries. Thus, since it was the duty of the minister to forward copies of all of the marriages he performed, the vast majority have been recorded at the civil level, even in the early years of civil registration. However, always be sure to check the original church record since there are often discrepancies between the civil and ecclesiastical copies of the same record. Clerical errors happen! We blogged about this recently.`` http://www.progenealogists.com/greatbritain/englishcivilregistration.htm
Sorry! But marriage is and always has been a function of religion, not government.
``Civil copies of marriage entries are duplicates of original church entries.``
Isn’t it such a Wittgensteinian thing to equate “sodomy” with a civil right?
Marxists bastardize language——twist words-—Homosexual should NEVER be allowed to exist along side the word “marriage” like for centuries. It is obscene and ugly idea that is trying to be “normalized” so we can rid the world of the Bible and the true God.
All in a Marxist minute——redefinition of words—like abortion=pro-choice, etc. is to make some despicable behavior and choice appear “normal” and “natural”. There is nothing normal and natural about sodomy. It is an evil act.
Disgusting. The Blacks should be outraged. Behaviors that are destructive to humans should be outlawed like sodomy has been for hundreds of years.
The state of New York, in its wisdom, says that same sex couples may marry in civil ceremonies. That doesn’t mean that religions are forced to do the same.
I think I might have read something somewhere about, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” or something along those lines.
Don't strain your brain cell, dingbats.
I liked this: “What I don’t understand is why religious organizations try to interfere with the civil rights of people as they have done in New York and California. I especially wonder how many of their members approve of the fact that their donations are being used to wage these legal battles.”
I absolutely approve of any and all money I give to the Church being used to support defense of True Marriage — one man and one woman. And I likewise support the use of my money to refute same-sex unions. They cannot, by definition, be marriages, since those suffering from same sex attraction cannot procreate with their “partners.”
To be completely blunt, I was more than a bit let down when the “act” was about to be signed by Cuomo. But I completely support the Archbishop’s actions here. And he has to make this decree since there are still modernists who require assistance in avoiding making truly grievous errors in the name of not raising a fuss or what-have-you.
The Arch banned this? Funny, I thought the Church forbade it.
Yeah, clearly the Archbishop is trying to curry favor with people by standing up against the legitimization of homosexuality.
Excellent remarks, and I agree.
“I think the whole issue of religious marriage was just an attempt to muddy the waters,” Ms. Palladino said.”
Yeah, that’s the problem here, “religoius marriage.” Right.
Freegards, thanks for all the pings
BULL! The intention is and always has been to have people accept your "lifestyle" choices with any legal forcible means necessary.
“Staten Islanders react” means “we talked to a gay activist, a left-wing politican, and a gay left-wing politician.”