Statement from Bishop Richard Malone on the SCOTUS Decision on Marriage

"This is truly a tragic day for marriage and for our nation. Today’s Supreme Court decision on the unconstitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) goes against everything human reason teaches us about marriage -- it is the union of one man and one woman open to the birth and rearing of children. Marriage between one man and one woman is not the same as same-sex relationships. Therefore treating them differently is not unjust discrimination and should not be ruled as such.

Promoting and protecting marriage in the law is essential to securing the common good, especially the good of children who have a basic right to be raised by their own mother and father. If the law does not respect truth, it undermines the common good. Overturning DOMA gravely impacts the institution of marriage and the religious freedoms of those who uphold marriage and oppose its redefinition.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York stated, “The Court got it wrong.” We agree that the preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. Because today’s society may not support marriage does not mean that we should not.

We must pledge to work for the restoration of the true meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, as God has created it to be. We cannot surrender to the growing distortion of what God has created marriage to be, even if that distortion has been made law in our own state.

We must urge our leaders to defend and restore the true meaning of marriage. We pray for those who may suffer the consequences of the Supreme Court’s mistaken decision." --Diocese of Buffalo, Office of Communications

Other Catholic viewpoints:

Archbishop Chaput: "In striking down Sec. 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in United States v. Windsor, the Court leaves intact – at least for now -- state constitutional definitions of marriage as an institution restricted to one man and one woman. As Justice Samuel Alito points out in his dissent, no federal “right” to same-sex marriage exists. The Constitution simply does not establish one. 

As Catholics we believe marriage needs to be strengthened, not redefined. It is a great gift to men, women, children and society. Affirming the true definition of marriage denies no one his or her basic rights. On the contrary protecting marriage affirms the equal dignity of women and men and safeguards the basic rights of children. 

Same-sex unions, whatever legal form they take, cannot create new life. They cannot duplicate the love of a man and woman. But they do copy marriage and family, and in the process, they compete with and diminish the uniquely important status of both. The legal battle about marriage will continue. And the Church’s commitment to promote the authentic meaning of marriage and family will be vigorously pursued. --Facebook page

Jimmy Akin: 12 things you need to know about the court's homosexual marriage decisions

Thomas Peters: More Than Marriage is at Stake Now

Cardinal Dolan via First Things

Fr. Dwight Longenecker: Why I'm Scared

Supreme Court allows sex abuse case against Vatican to proceed :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Supreme Court allows sex abuse case against Vatican to proceed :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Washington D.C., Jun 28, 2010 / 12:12 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined an immunity appeal by the Holy See in a case that attempts to sue the Vatican for transferring a priest accused of sexually abusing a minors several decades ago. The ruling by the Supreme Court allows the case to move forward.

An anonymous plaintiff from Oregon filed suit against the Vatican in 2002 after Fr. Andrew Ronan, an Irish priest with a history of sexually abusing minors, was transferred from Ireland to the U.S. and eventually moved to the Portland, Oregon. According to Reuters, Fr. Ronan died in 1992.

The plaintiff claims he was abused by Fr. Ronan several times in the mid 1960s and has filed suit against the Vatican, charging that the Catholic Church is responsible for transferring the priest and conspiring to cover up the allegations.

Jeffrey Lena, the U.S. attorney for the Vatican, has argued that the plaintiff has not provided evidence that the Vatican moved the priest or had control over him. Several U.S. bishops have also stated in the media that it is the local bishop who has control over priests, not the Vatican.

In a move to have a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated, the Holy See attempted to claim immunity under a U.S. Law – the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 – which helps prevent foreign states from being sued in court.

However, the appeals court cited exceptions to the law and charged that there was sufficient evidence that Fr. Ronan was an employee of the Vatican under Oregon law, thus allocating responsibility to the Holy See.

Another development in the case came in May when the U.S. Solicitor General’s office submitted an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals misapplied the Sovereign Immunities Act.

The brief also claimed that the priest’s sexual abuse was also “not within the scope of the priest’s employment,” according to the solicitor general’s office, which advised the case be vacated and remanded back to the appellate court.

Despite these arguments, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the 9th Circuit ruling to stand and declined to rule on the Vatican's immunity appeal. The decision by the nation's highest court was made without comment. The case will now proceed in U.S. District Court under the Oregon standards of employment.