Card Shonborn says stable homosexual relationship better than unstable hetero ones

[Bookcat]

I’m pretty sure it said he was advocating divorce and remarriage and I thought a quote made that clear.

.

Nope he was not.

The media gets lots of things wrong…and what ever was said it was not that those who are divorced should be able to get remarried…

 

[Exalt]

I read the clarification article and his comment about a stable homosexual relationship being better than promiscuous hetero ones still stands. He is not calling for a change in Church teaching, but his level of gradation is incorrect. Both actions are immoral and sinful. He is arguing that stable homosexual relationships are slightly less grave than promiscuous straight relationships.

I would argue just the opposite. One is unnatural and sinful and the other is sinful. To be fair, both are “unnatural” in the eyes of God, but the Bible is clear about which action rises to the level of an abomination.

Compare murdering someone with a gun and murdering someone with your hands and teeth. One is unnatural and sinful and the other sinful, right?



“Naturalness” is a silly judge of morality. Cars, shoes, guns, clothing, skyscrapers, engineered foods, vaccines, computers - these things cannot be thought of as natural and yet they are not immoral. Curious, isn’t it, that the “natural” argument only seems applied to sexual acts - and everywhere else it is conveniently ignored?

 

[OraLabora]

the gay act is a serious sin

There is no “gay act”. Same-sex partners engage in a variety of sexual acts, not all of them engage in all of the acts.

That’s actually part of the problem with same-sex marriage. There is no defining act (the procreative act) around which the entire sacrament coalesces.

You can annul a marriage for non-consummation. But how do you annul a same-sex “marriage” for non-consummation, if nobody agrees on what consummates a same-sex marriage?

Let’s say that a same-sex partner tries to argue for an annulment because his partner never engaged in act “A” but engaged in act “B”. The other partner argues that the “marriage” was “consummated” because he engaged in act “B” even though his partner thinks it wasn’t, because he prefers act “A” to act “B” and since his partner never engaged in the former, the “marriage” was “invalid”. It’s logical nonsense, because nobody agrees on what act consummates a same-sex “marriage”. The only way out, ISTM, would be to codify in the marriage contract an agreed-upon definition of “consummation” (this “marriage” is hereby consummated when both parties engage in act “X” to completion)… the whole notion of same-sex “marriage” is flawed at its most fundamental level. It may be a co-habitation partnership and I have no arguments against legal rights for those based on the notion that the state has no place in the bedrooms of consenting adults (it’s a moral issue, not a legal one), but it sure ain’t a “marriage”.

In a real marriage (either natural i.e. non-Catholic, or sacramental), the marriage is either consummated, or it isn’t, on the sole basis of the marital act. If the husband, for instance, is unhappy because his wife doesn’t engage in oral sex, but otherwise the marriage was consummated through the natural marital act, too bad, so sad, you don’t qualify for a non-consummation annulment.

 

[foolishmortal]

I don’t agree with the National Organization of Marriage saying marriage is a human institution. You might as well say, then, there’s no reason humans can’t change the institution, if it’s ours to manipulate the definitions of, to make gay marriages state recognized. No. It’s God’s institution, whether it’s known or not. We can’t tear asunder what God has brought together. Thus, no remarriage for the split-ups unless a spouse dies or the marriage was annulled for being declared under false conditions. I don’t know if non-Catholics can effectively annul a non-Catholic marriage, but I don’t see the state doing that. I question if anyone non-Catholic can be married by a government official, as we can’t, though I’m not for trying to date one declared married by the state, which was invalid.

 

[OraLabora]

I don’t know if non-Catholics can effectively annul a non-Catholic marriage, but I don’t see the state doing that.

Non-consummation can indeed be grounds for a legal annulment of a marriage in most jurisdictions.

I question if anyone non-Catholic can be married by a government official, as we can’t, though I’m not for trying to date one declared married by the state, which was invalid.

I believe the Church terms such marriages as “natural” marriages. They aren’t sacramental in the Church’s eyes though.

 

[foolishmortal]

Are they real in the Church’s eyes and thus, God’s eyes?