Monday, July 30, 2012

KUDOS TO CARDINAL FRANCIS GEORGE, OMI OF CHICAGO; HE HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD




With the "intolerant Nazis" aka liberal progressives, try to keep a fast food chicken sandwich chain out of their communities because its owner believes in natural law and the definition of Marriage as it has been defined for thousands of years, we see how insidious the "world" is towards believers and they give us reason to look again at Saint John's Gospel and realize that no authentic Christian can follow the ways of the "world" as St. John defines it and as we are now experiencing from manipulating cultural engineers who are in the mass media, liberal politics and academia.

With that said, read Cardinal George's take on the world as St. John defines it and as it is being shoved down our throats by progressive liberals in all institutions of our society today:


Monday, July 30, 2012
Reflections on “Chicago values”

Recent comments by those who administer our city seem to assume that the city government can decide for everyone what are the “values” that must be held by citizens of Chicago. I was born and raised here, and my understanding of being a Chicagoan never included submitting my value system to the government for approval. Must those whose personal values do not conform to those of the government of the day move from the city? Is the City Council going to set up a “Council Committee on Un-Chicagoan Activities” and call those of us who are suspect to appear before it? I would have argued a few days ago that I believe such a move is, if I can borrow a phrase, “un-Chicagoan.”

The value in question is espousal of “gender-free marriage.” Approval of state-sponsored homosexual unions has very quickly become a litmus test for bigotry; and espousing the understanding of marriage that has prevailed among all peoples throughout human history is now, supposedly, outside the American consensus. Are Americans so exceptional that we are free to define “marriage” (or other institutions we did not invent) at will? What are we re-defining?

It might be good to put aside any religious teaching and any state laws and start from scratch, from nature itself, when talking about marriage. Marriage existed before Christ called together his first disciples two thousand years ago and well before the United States of America was formed two hundred and thirty six years ago. Neither Church nor state invented marriage, and neither can change its nature.

Marriage exists because human nature comes in two complementary sexes: male and female. The sexual union of a man and woman is called the marital act because the two become physically one in a way that is impossible between two men or two women. Whatever a homosexual union might be or represent, it is not physically marital. Gender is inextricably bound up with physical sexual identity; and “gender-free marriage” is a contradiction in terms, like a square circle.

Both Church and state do, however, have an interest in regulating marriage. It is not that religious marriage is private and civil marriage public; rather, marriage is a public institution in both Church and state. The state regulates marriage to assure stability in society and for the proper protection and raising of the next generation of citizens. The state has a vested interest in knowing who is married and who is not and in fostering good marriages and strong families for the sake of society.

The Church, because Jesus raised the marital union to the level of symbolizing his own union with his Body the Church, has an interest in determining which marital unions are sacramental and which are not. The Church sees married life as a path to sanctity and as the means for raising children in the faith, as citizens of the universal kingdom of God. These are all legitimate interests of both Church and state, but they assume and do not create the nature of marriage.

People who are not Christian or religious at all take for granted that marriage is the union of a man and a woman for the sake of family and, of its nature, for life. The laws of civilizations much older than ours assume this understanding of marriage. This is also what religious leaders of almost all faiths have taught throughout the ages. Jesus affirmed this understanding of marriage when he spoke of “two becoming one flesh” (Mt. 19: 4-6). Was Jesus a bigot? Could Jesus be accepted as a Chicagoan? Would Jesus be more “enlightened” if he had the privilege of living in our society? One is welcome to believe that, of course; but it should not become the official state religion, at least not in a land that still fancies itself free.

Surely there must be a way to properly respect people who are gay or lesbian without using civil law to undermine the nature of marriage. Surely we can find a way not to play off newly invented individual rights to “marriage” against constitutionally protected freedom of religious belief and religious practice. The State’s attempting to redefine marriage has become a defining moment not for marriage, which is what it is, but for our increasingly fragile “civil union” as citizens.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

2 comments:

Bill Meyer said...

That's a great picture which sums things up well. That said, I was a bit surprised to read this article from Cardinal George, given that Chicago is pretty much the model for corrupt politics. The Daley dynasty was not known for consulting their constituents. Cardinal George's voice is certainly welcome in this, but should there not have been an endless string of such statements? The city has remained true to its form; this is not sudden change.

rcg said...

First of all this guy is a MAN based on that second sentence alone. Clint Eastwood could not have said it better. Secondly, this is a very compelling argument that has not seen much light of day. The only purpose of the homosexual act is sensual gratification. It is contrary to what love could exist between two people of the same sex by making sexual stimulation equal to the actual caring love could exist between them.