Communication from the Catholic
Bishops of Massachusetts to Members of the General Court on the Definition of Marriage
TO: Senate President
Robert E. Travaglini, House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran, and Members of the Massachusetts
General Court
RE: Marriage
Affirmation & Protection Amendment, H. 3190
DATE: June 2, 2003
You have faced difficult choices in dealing with the budget
deficit. We do not envy your role in trying to
make financial ends meet without forgetting “the least, the last, and the lost”,
to which we referred in our recent pastoral statement on the budget. From our vantage point, it generally appears that
you have tried to do your best in impossible circumstances.
Now another issue confronts you—the looming decision of the
Supreme Judicial Court in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that many anticipate
could redefine legal marriage in the Commonwealth. You
have before you a proposed constitutional amendment that reaffirms marriage as the union
between one man and one woman. We urge you to
give this amendment an affirmative vote in the upcoming joint session so that, ultimately,
the people can vote on it.
Our position on this issue is rooted in a profound regard for
the sexual union between a man and a woman. Only
this union bears the natural capacity to beget human life in a setting that provides both
a mother and a father for the child. This
union is called the “first society” because both halves of society are always
represented in the home and must continue to co-exist, even when no children are involved. Thus, the importance of this union to the
smooth continuation and the general stability of the larger society, especially its young,
is unequaled. No other private relationship
possesses such public significance or enjoys such a time-proven record of benefiting
society. It is this public character that
explains history’s regard for the union between a man and a woman as marriage.
If the court in Goodridge redefines marriage as a commitment
between two adults regardless of gender, then we expect serious consequences. The state will be forced to abandon the presumption
that having a mother and a father in the home is ideal for children, and must then endorse
the view that children do not need both a father and a mother. State policymakers will become more vulnerable to
legal challenges seeking official approval of a host of other “intimate”
relationships. The employment and other social
policies of private institutions will have to change, or face discrimination lawsuits, if
they recognize on moral grounds only the union between one man and one woman as marriage.
Our position on marriage and our position in favor of the
marriage amendment have nothing to do with hatred for or disregard of any human being. Nor does our affirmation of marriage dictate the
unjust denial of public services or material benefits to unmarried persons. Our unwillingness to endorse other forms of sexual
relationships as marriage does not preclude us from recognizing the dignity of individuals
and the value of chaste friendships outside of marriage.
Justice demands that we uphold the equal value of all individuals at the
same time we uphold the distinct and irreplaceable value of marriage between a man and a
woman.
We are aware that some persons, coming before the legislature
and purporting to speak from authority as Catholic theologians and as clergy, have
misrepresented the Church’s position on marriage.
These persons have erroneously claimed that support for the amendment
is inconsistent with Catholic teaching.
These persons were not authorized to represent the Catholic
Church, or its official teachers, the Bishops. The
Bishops, not theologians, are officially responsible for discerning, upholding, and
communicating Catholic doctrine. The Bishops
may delegate certain duties, but they are the primary teachers ultimately responsible for
the content of Catholic teaching.
Before this legislature, the Bishops speak through the
Massachusetts Catholic Conference (MCC) and its staff as the Bishops’ delegate. None of the persons mischaracterizing Catholic
teaching on marriage sought or received permission from the Bishops or the MCC to address
the legislature in any official capacity or as representatives of any Catholic
institution.
Anyone has the right to speak before the legislature. Yet this right is abused when exercised in a manner
wrongly leading others to believe that the speaker is acting in an official capacity for
the Catholic Church, its Bishops or its institutions.
We regret any confusion caused by these persons and their conduct before the
legislature.
You will remain in our prayers.
Bishop Richard G. Lennon, Apostolic Administrator, Archdiocese of Boston
Bishop Daniel P. Reilly, Diocese of Worcester
Bishop Thomas L. Dupre, Diocese of Springfield
Bishop-Elect George W. Coleman, Diocese of Fall River
- Massachusetts Catholic Conference
- West End Place, Suite 5
- 150 Staniford Street, Boston MA 02114-2511