Not at all. You have no ground for accusing me of dishonesty. Nor do you have any business saying what other people “mean” to do.
Step back and look at the big picture here. We are in a highly individualistic society in which communities are not as close-knit as they used to be. People who are not married are very isolated. People need other people. They need close relationships, and there are certain societal advantages to recognizing such relationships legally. This isn’t about sex. What we need to do is to take the civil union debate out of the context of the sexuality debate altogether. Since unmarried people can no longer depend on kinship groups for support, they need to have other possibilities.
The problem with the gay rights debate is well stated by then-Cardinal Ratzinger in the linked document: on the one hand, society should not give public approval to disordered sexuality; on the other hand, the dignity of gay people should be respected. The best way to preserve this is to create a broad category of civil unions that does not have anything necessarily to do with sexuality.
As it stands, many people find the Church’s position cruel and immoral because the genuine human needs of people who cannot get married are being rejected along with the disordered sexual inclinations of the largest and most vocal group of such people.
But it’s not clear that the Vatican has even considered the line of argument I’m suggesting. The assumption throughout the linked document is that recognition of any non-marital unions between/among people is somehow approving disordered sexuality.
This is how Church teaching develops. The Church makes a statement outlining the theological issues and condemning a flawed approach–people who find the present Church position unsatisfactory go back to the drawing board and come up with a new approach that respects the Church’s concerns while also giving voice to concerns that the present teaching isn’t recognizing. And so on, until a fully satisfactory position is reached.
Edwin
Good afternoon, Contarini,
I respectfully disagree with your charges against the Holy Roman Catholic Church. Because I believe she does well to recognize the focus of the Gay Rights Activists. It is not the Church who focuses on homosexuality, but the Gay Rights Activists who draw everybody’s attention away from the non-sexual unions and issues to solely the Gay Rights Activists’ positions.
As far the rest of it, the non-gays have consequences to other than traditional marriage living arrangements, too. That’s not the Chucrh’s fault, that’s the establishment’s doings. And, I can see their point: why should corporations or taxpayers pay for something which can be avoided if all single Christians practiced the celibacy we are supposed to? Why should they pay for the sins and shortcomings of others?
However, cries of benefits for sins shows how sin tears and rips the moral fabric of a society.
The Church recognizes social issues not only for homosexuals, but also Native Americans, immigrants, orphans, widows, as well as the poor and indigent of all races, colors, religions, creeds and types of sinners … including sexual … which includes homosexuality. The recently (twenty years is recent) out of the closet gays have a long line to be at the back of. It’s rather rude of them to try to cut to the front of the line. Christian charity of others says little about Militant gays rudeness. But Christian teaching exhorts us to admonish others in error. And, I like to keep things in a historical perspective and broad social context.
God loves you,
Don
Imho, it’s much better if sinful living has no benefits.
God loves you,
Don
