S
Steve_O_Brien
Guest
I strongly believe that Catholic politicians who refuse to oppose legalized abortion or the legal recognition of same-sex unions should, after pastoral counseling and a warning from their bishop, be excommunicated. Still, I wonder whether another approach can be justified in the case of legislation that merely acknowledges the existence of same-gender orientation (which, though a disordered inclination, is not a sin) without explicitly approving same-gender acts (which *are * sins).
I’m struck by this: in the June 3, 2003, Vatican instruction that sternly (and rightly) directs Catholics to be uncompromising in fighting same-sex unions, the Magisterium does not mention any obligation to oppose, say, a law which merely prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Please consider the text and tone of the whole document, and please pay special attention to the following passages:
***“Where the government’s policy is *de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons” (section 5). * *
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions” (section 11).
Here’s a link for this document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Question: if a move were to be made in Congress to abandon the U.S. military’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by allowing members of the Armed Forces to declare their same-sex orientation publicly, would we as Catholics be morally obliged to oppose such a policy change? Could such legislation be viewed as covered under the “de facto tolerance” that the Vatican instruction countenances provided that “there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions”? Moreover, could this new law be regarded as compatible with the fact that the “Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour,” and also with the fact that the Church condemns “unjust discrimination against homosexual persons”?
Keep and spread the Faith.
I’m struck by this: in the June 3, 2003, Vatican instruction that sternly (and rightly) directs Catholics to be uncompromising in fighting same-sex unions, the Magisterium does not mention any obligation to oppose, say, a law which merely prohibits employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Please consider the text and tone of the whole document, and please pay special attention to the following passages:
***“Where the government’s policy is *de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons” (section 5). * *
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions” (section 11).
Here’s a link for this document:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Question: if a move were to be made in Congress to abandon the U.S. military’s current “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy by allowing members of the Armed Forces to declare their same-sex orientation publicly, would we as Catholics be morally obliged to oppose such a policy change? Could such legislation be viewed as covered under the “de facto tolerance” that the Vatican instruction countenances provided that “there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions”? Moreover, could this new law be regarded as compatible with the fact that the “Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour,” and also with the fact that the Church condemns “unjust discrimination against homosexual persons”?
Keep and spread the Faith.