Exclusive: Bishop Paprocki’s Letter in Defense of Marriage to be Read at All Springfield Masses This Sunday

As I wrote yesterday, lawmakers in Springfield, Illinois are trying to bring up a bill to redefine marriage. If proponents of same-sex marriage believe they have enough votes they will try to get the bill to the floor as early as today.

Efforts to bring the issue up to a vote already have hit a snag, however, and as a result the bill to redefine marriage will probably be voted on as an amendment to a totally unrelated bill involving car rentals (seriously).

If you live in Illinois and haven’t yet contacted your lawmakers in Springfield to demand they protect marriage please do so now! You can use this form or (preferably) call their office directly.

I’m glad to report that yet another brave bishop in Illinois is taking this debate as an opportunity to educate his flock and urge them to take action. Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Diocese of Springfield has instructed all of his priests to read this at Mass on Sunday:

SSM-Illinois +Paprocki Letter 1-2-2013

Bishop Paprocki was last mentioned on these pages when he summed up the election in a single sentence.

Bishop Paprocki and Cardinal George are not the only faith leaders to speak out in defense of marriage. Over 1,700 faith communities in Illinois have signed on to a letter demanding that the laws of their state reflect the true reality of marriage.

Please pray for the protection of children and marriage in Illinois!



211 thoughts on “Exclusive: Bishop Paprocki’s Letter in Defense of Marriage to be Read at All Springfield Masses This Sunday

  1. Deker71 says:

    “Give to God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesars'”. Genesis
    defines marriage as a union between man and women to become one
    resulting in children. It’s interesting how the discovery of DNA and
    meiosis supports this since it shows that children are a ‘oneness’, and
    truly a biologic union of man and woman. Thus heterosexual marriage
    alone is the societal structure for raising a family which is the
    backbone of society.

    Gay unions are not for procreation, and
    cannot create a union of one , and therefore cannot be a marriage. And
    what about the constitutional rights of children to have a mother and
    father. Gay marriage cannot be justified since it destroys those
    rights. Family and marriage is a gift from God; not Caesar.

    1. ostracario says:

      The “gays can’t procreate…therefore they don’t deserve marriage” argument was debunked long ago. Procreation is no a prerequisite for marriage. Many couples choose not to, or cannot have, children. People past the age of being able to procreated are not denied marriage either.

      The reality is that gays are getting married and some are raising children. Whether you like it or not, this is a trend that will continue. As more states will legalize marriage equality there will be more gay marriages. You and yours will see, as they did in Canada and other countries that have made marriage equality a priority, that giving gay people the same rights and freedoms than many heterosexuals take for granted is good and just.

      1. Deker71 says:

        The purpose of marriage is for procreation and for raising children. This goes back to Adam and Eve. As I stated in my earlier comment, the natural law and biology also supports this. People that can’t procreate, through no fault of their own, are certainly eligible for marriage.

        Gay marriage is damaging to children as shown in recent studies by Regner, and testimonials from former homosexuals. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Just because the law gives you the right to do something doesn’t make it morally right – slavery used to be legal.

  2. scottrose says:

    When is the Catholic Church going to acknowledge that in its power-sharing agreements with Mussolini, it enthusiastically participated in demonizing WWII-era homosexuals and getting them deported to concentration camps?

  3. abadilla says:

    Well Mr. Peters, I received the “f” word several times in my mail. Of course I will not answer such trash, but I hope you do with the click of the “delete” button. I don’t mind strong disagreements but foul language has no place in any Catholic website.

  4. DrewHardies says:

    This is absolutely a religious freedom issue. Priests choose not to marry Muslims. They also choose to not marry gays. That’s their right. And it’ll be their right after this decision.

    The difference is that other religious leaders want the freedom to sanctify these marriages. This is the religious freedom at stake.

    1. ostracario says:

      Actually it’s my life, the life of my husband and the lives of other same-sex couples that are at stake. When the Pope attacks the GLBT community by saying that same-sex marriage is “insidious and dangerous” then I take issue with that. Practice your religion however you please but please don’t attempt to force your beliefs on me or anyone else. I’m already married to my husband – married for 7 years, together for 23 years – but his attack on my community is still very much my concern. Your religious freedom is not at stake. Our lives are.

  5. TimCA says:

    It’s really mind boggling how a religious sect such as the Roman Catholic Church that once suffered so much from legal discrimination in this country, could now turn around and advocate for state sponsored discrimination against another minority group. If I was a priest being required to read this statement, I would lower my head in utter shame.

    1. abadilla says:

      A religious sect? I am bewildered at how you can consider the majority of Christians, 1 billion to be precised, a sect.

      “I would lower my head in utter shame” But you are not a priest, thanks be to God, and if a priest is ready to disobey his Church and his bishop, then he should not be a priest, period!

      1. TimCA says:

        Perhaps I’m using the term incorrectly? I do recognize that the RCC constitutes a very large part, if not the majority of Christians in the world today. But we should also bear in mind that not all Christians are Catholics and that Christians are not the only citizens of our great country. Other people have rights too

        1. abadilla says:

          You are correct is stating not all Christians are Catholics but most Christians, whether Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Episcopalian or the mainline Protestant churches also oppose homosexual “marriage.” Now, we stand out because of the hierarchical nature of the Church and because we have a Pope in Rome known for better or worse all over the globe.

          “Other people have rights” That’s part of the disagreement, Many people see gay marriage as a right, many people in and out of the Church do not see it that way at all!

          1. TimCA says:

            And this is a fundamental problem between us. I am not religious in the least but I do support the rights of others to make decisions about their own lives, ie to worship their God however they see fit (without of course harming other people….I’m sure you and I would be against legalized human sacrifice as a religious rite…LOL!) But unfortunately when it comes to my rights to make one of the most basic fundamental choices about my life, who I marry (I’m gay by the way), you would legally prohibit me from making that choice in the name of your religion. I, frankly, think this is very wrong.

          2. abadilla says:

            And I support your right to do as you see fit, but the gay movement has to understand we have those rights too. You state, “harming other people” but you see Tim, we do see gay marriage as harming the family and that’s why we are adamant about it being wrong. We do fight for our principles, just like many in the gay community fight for theirs, but I’m not about to accuse them of bigotry or hatred simply because they disagree with the Roman Catholic Church.
            Thank you for disclosing that you are gay. The other night I had dinner with two gay friends – one of them was my student years ago – and we discussed this matter, but at no time did they call me names or I called them names. We simply agree to disagree. I can see how passionate they are about their position, but they could also see I’m passionate about my position too. I do believe civil unions protect gay people legally and think that is the way to go, but unless gay marriage can produce children and is seen by Christianity as a virtue rather thah a sin, as a believing Catholic I have to stick with my principles just as you have to stick with yours because you honestly believe you are right.
            As far as human rights are concern, I believe in them just as much as you do. Years ago this kid was killed and tortured because he was gay and I was sickened by the news. I believe what was done to him is indeed bigotry and evil and sinful. I do believe gay people have a difficult situation being accepted by everyone in society and I have gay students who respect me even though they know my position on the issues. We simply agree to disagree, but if any bully were to try to harm any of my students because of his sexual orientation, I would be livid and would interfere immediately on behalf of the kid, and my students know that. BTW, I wrote “him” because I teach only male students in an all male school.

          3. TimCA says:

            I’m glad that I’ve now seen this post as this puts a much more human and compassionate face to the opposition. Too often people with diametrically opposing viewpoints can fall into the trap of demonizing the other. I guess that’s just an unfortunate part of being a human being. But what does trouble me though is this statement of yours that

            “unless gay marriage can produce children and is seen by Christianity as a virtue rather thah a sin, as a believing Catholic I have to stick with my principles ”

            What this statement seems to imply is that any right or privilege that I might enjoy as a citizen must measure up against a Christian (as defined by the RCC) litmus test. It’s a standard that I find antithetical to a pluralistic and free society.

          4. abadilla says:

            Tim, if you knew me personally, you would know it is very hard for me to listen and establish a dialogue with anyone. I tend to be set on my ways, particularly now that I’m getting old, but I experienced gay people in my own family. In one instance, a lesbian niece who died of brain tumor told me she was planning to leave her house to her mate. She wanted to know what was my opinion regarding that situation because she trusted my judgment and the rest of the family opposed her leaving her house to her mate. I told her in justice she should leave the property to her mate and she did. I also have a gay brother and he and I have never been able to have a decent dialogue with him because he wants nothing to do with what he sees as an evil Church and certainly that is not the way I understand my Church, Both of these situations I experienced in my country of origin where the very idea of civil unions or rights for gays, is simply not there yet.

            “What this statement seems to imply is that any right or privilege that I might enjoy as a citizen must measure up against a Christian (as defined by the RCC) litmus test. It’s a standard that I find antithetical to a pluralistic and free society.”
            I understand why this statement would be troubling for you. If I were gay, I would be troubling for me too, however, I would not be true to my religion if I didn’t express it to you. I don’t always find the right words to express a thought without upsetting a person with whom I’m trying to communicate.
            It’s not a litmus test. From the very beginning of Christianity, in the Scriptures, particularly in the book of Romans, we find a tremendous condemnation of homosexual acts, not homosexual orientation. The Church has followed this teaching throughout her 2000 years of existence.
            Someone in this forum said, why didn’t the Church oppose marriage before? Simple. It never had to confront the question until now. It never had to confront the reality of bombs falling on civilian populations either, but the Second Vatican Council adressed those issues because it became a question for the Church to answer after WWII. Even 20 or 30 years ago most Christians, Catholic or not, would simply not posed the question of gay marriage because it was understood that marriage is to be between a man and a women who express their love in the marriage bed and that love is fruitful, it has children who form a family. Naturally, since this is our view of marriage, we would oppose any laws that we would see as detrimental to our understaning of marriage. Understand, when we say something is detrimental of marriage, we don’t mean detrimental to only Catholic or Christian marriage but detrimental to all marriages in society at large. As someone already said in this forum, we can’t “dictate” anything, if we could the matter would be over by now. All we can do is “persuade” others of the rightness of our position and that’s exactly what we are doing.

  6. Dale Snyder says:

    Lie after lie after lie – and let’s throw in the normal christian hatred as well.

    Boies and Olson will salivate – oh wait – they probably already are salivating over this gem of lies and animus and have wings on their heels to show this to the SCOTUS justices.

    1. abadilla says:

      From Tjay229, “”Fuck the Catholic Church and all that try to stop SSM” How am I lying?

      1. TimCA says:

        And you and Mr. Snyder think that lesbian, gay and transgendered people have never been subjected to hateful remarks or worse by members of your church?

        1. abadilla says:

          Don’t play victim here because it won’t work. Gay people as any minority has been discriminated against by all sorts of people, whether religious or not. To put the blame on my Church for that is myopic at best!

          1. TimCA says:

            I’m certainly not putting the blame exclusively on your church. Nor even on religious people exclusively. That would be patently unfair. But for Mr. Snyder and you to point to one vehement statement by one commentator above (who BTW is having the ability to make basic decisions about HIS own life held hostage by YOUR religious dogma) as proof some how that all LGBT people and our straight allies have no respect for your right to practice your religion, is absurd.

          2. abadilla says:

            I thought Snyder was against what I was saying but I guess I was wrong. “Held hostage by YOUR religious dogma.” News to me that it is a dogma, but everyone in our Church is free to either uphold the teachings of the Church or not. Those that don’t, pretty much begin to live their lives as if God didn’t exist, and pretty soon they are Catholic only in name.
            Now Tim, I have the feeling you and I don’t understand the word “dogma” to be the same thing. What is your understanding of what dogma means? When my church states that Christ is God, that’s a dogma of faith. When my Church teaches that Mary was conceived without original sin, that’s a dogma of faith, when the Church teachers that we understand God as a Blessed Trinity, that’s a dogma of faith, so you and I might not be using the same term the same way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.