Catholic Response towards Civil Union

[DebChris]

Homosexual acts are inherently disordered., whereas those of adultery or fornication are not. The marital act is within marriage is holy. Fornication and adultery are the marital act outside marriage. Homosexual acts are not the marital act at all. Yes, all of these are sins which lead to damnation, but the homosexual acts are furthest from the marital act. That is why they are more corrupting and lead to more destructive of society and family life quicker…

I think you answered the question in a way that others have failed.

 

[fix]

I think you are confusing the problem with the solution. RyanML pointed out that there is a contradiction in scripture. This would appear to be widely accepted as correct. There is also some contradiction in holy tradition, though not for many centuries.

For Catholics, such contradictions do not represent a problem. We have an apostolic Church, which provides us with proper interpretation of doctrine. However, we do not have a lot of eccumenical guidence, nor has a pope spoken ex cathedra, so we cannot deem our current position to be a moral absolute.

Are you saying only an “ex cathedra” statement is true and binding on conscience?

Look at the CDF’s document on civil unions which I linked to before. It is quite forceful, but openly describes the situation as “discrimination”. However, it notes that discrimination is permissible until it interferes with justice. Since secular unions have some taxation and civil rights implications, there is some area of moral ambiguity.

What ambiguity? The document says civil unions must be opposed. In fact, the CDF listed areas where discrimination is not unjust.

What I find interesting is that many of the Catholics who howl at the suggestion of moral ambiguity in this case often grant themselves some moral latitude with the same teaching. Consider how the Church references the teaching with regards to voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is put very forcefully, it is even described as a “fundamental and inalienable ethical demand”. But while I see a lot of enthusiasm for the snippet “between a man and a woman” I see a lot less enthusiasm for promoting the rest. This raises the legitimate question as to rather or not we are motivated by a desire to target and discriminate, which would be sinful, or a sincere desire to defend the family. While we remain selective in our embrace of the teaching, we remain open to the secular accusations of hate.

I am not sure of your point here. Any of these documents are to be interpreted in light of all Church teaching and not placed in contradiction to appease some partisan agenda.

Keep in mind we have a living magisterium to guide us.

 

[fix]

Homosexual acts are inherently disordered., whereas those of adultery or fornication are not. The marital act is within marriage is holy. Fornication and adultery are the marital act outside marriage. Homosexual acts are not the marital act at all. Yes, all of these are sins which lead to damnation, but the homosexual acts are furthest from the marital act. That is why they are more corrupting and lead to more destructive of society and family life quicker…

Well done. Aquinas would agree with you.

Each time these “gay” agenda issues are brought up someone tries to claim it is unfair to single out these sins? That is not only a straw man argument I am not sure it is good theology.

Even the CCC mentions that not all grave sin is the same:

**1858 **Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

 

[pathia]

My partner and I have been to together for 9years (this week!) and we’re celibate, always have been celibate. I would very much like to setup some form of contracts with him, but every time we try it’s thrown out because it ‘mimics marriage’ which is illegal per the constitution of this state. We tried to setup a LLC, but that was thrown out and dissolved too because of the same reason.

If we were two people just trying to form a business, that would be OK, but as far as the law is concerned since we have a ‘relationship’ all contracts are instantly void.

 

[RyanML]

We can look at the Council of Jerusalem in which the Apostles debated about whether or not converts needed to follow Mosaic Law. The decision was that new converts needed to refrain from illicit sexual relationships and meat sacrificed to idols.
Later when we read the Epistles of Paul, it is definitively stated that fornication, adultery, and homosexuality lead to damnation. Those who commit these sins against the flesh hurt not only others, but themselves as well.
There is more involved than merely social norms. At the same time social norms do reflect the moral climate of a nation and/or culture, pluralistic or otherwise.

Actually if you read the context of Paul’s Epistle, he was not speaking of those with a homosexual orientation. As far as i know they had no concept of orientation, only behavior. Paul is talking about heterosexual persons whom God gave over to passions that the pagans exhibited because of their idolotrous worship. The Scriptures are silent on the subject of homosexually oriented persons.

 

[RyanML]

I think you are confusing the problem with the solution. RyanML pointed out that there is a contradiction in scripture. This would appear to be widely accepted as correct. There is also some contradiction in holy tradition, though not for many centuries.

For Catholics, such contradictions do not represent a problem. We have an apostolic Church, which provides us with proper interpretation of doctrine. However, we do not have a lot of eccumenical guidence, nor has a pope spoken ex cathedra, so we cannot deem our current position to be a moral absolute.

Look at the CDF’s document on civil unions which I linked to before. It is quite forceful, but openly describes the situation as “discrimination”. However, it notes that discrimination is permissible until it interferes with justice. Since secular unions have some taxation and civil rights implications, there is some area of moral ambiguity.

What I find interesting is that many of the Catholics who howl at the suggestion of moral ambiguity in this case often grant themselves some moral latitude with the same teaching. Consider how the Church references the teaching with regards to voting:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

This is put very forcefully, it is even described as a “fundamental and inalienable ethical demand”. But while I see a lot of enthusiasm for the snippet “between a man and a woman” I see a lot less enthusiasm for promoting the rest. This raises the legitimate question as to rather or not we are motivated by a desire to target and discriminate, which would be sinful, or a sincere desire to defend the family. While we remain selective in our embrace of the teaching, we remain open to the secular accusations of hate.

As far as homosexuality is concerned, I do not believe the Scriptures contradict themselves, I just don’t believe God’s Word has anything to say on the matter. Sure there are laws against heterosexual folks taking part in pagan war practices or the sexualized ritual acts of the pagans of Rome, but it says nothing of same sex love and the loving committment between two people of the same sex. God bless!

 

[DebChris]

Actually if you read the context of Paul’s Epistle, he was not speaking of those with a homosexual orientation. As far as i know they had no concept of orientation, only behavior. Paul is talking about heterosexual persons whom God gave over to passions that the pagans exhibited because of their idolotrous worship. The Scriptures are silent on the subject of homosexually oriented persons.

Check the link to the statement from the Vatican, as well as the CCC. Recognizing and being sympathetic toward orientation is not synonomous with acceptance of behavior.
When I lived in CA, there were two divorced women who lived in the same apartment complex. They had four children between them and had chosen to join households to save money. If you have ever lived in CA, then you know how expensive housing can be. It was not a matter of “two mommies.”
The question I have raised throughout this thread is why should two individuals with the stated purpose of engaging in an illicit homosexual relationship be given more rights than those with a platonic relationship who choose to share a domicile. Civil unions, as currently defined, make that distinction.

 

[RyanML]

Check the link to the statement from the Vatican, as well as the CCC. Recognizing and being sympathetic toward orientation is not synonomous with acceptance of behavior.
When I lived in CA, there were two divorced women who lived in the same apartment complex. They had four children between them and had chosen to join households to save money. If you have ever lived in CA, then you know how expensive housing can be. It was not a matter of “two mommies.”
The question I have raised throughout this thread is why should two individuals with the stated purpose of engaging in an illicit homosexual relationship be given more rights than those with a platonic relationship who choose to share a domicile. Civil unions, as currently defined, make that distinction.

Well first of all, under the law, a homosexual relationship isn’t illicit (unlawful). And maybe you have a point. If partner rights and benefits can be obtained through other legal means just as easily as if we had civil unions, maybe there isn’t a point to fighting for civil unions. I am not interested in changing time honored institutions or making the Church bless my relationship as something that it isn’t (ie, marriage).

 

[pathia]

Well first of all, under the law, a homosexual relationship isn’t illicit (unlawful). And maybe you have a point. If partner rights and benefits can be obtained through other legal means just as easily as if we had civil unions, maybe there isn’t a point to fighting for civil unions.

Right now, in almost all states, this isn’t the case though, in fact most of them have made it illegal.

 

[RyanML]

Right now, in almost all states, this isn’t the case though, in fact most of them have made it illegal.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is illegal? Can not most rights be obtained through wills and POAs?

 

[DebChris]

Right now, in almost all states, this isn’t the case though, in fact most of them have made it illegal.

What goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is not illegal in the sense that it leads to a person’s arrest.
The acts may be illicit, in terms of morality and social acceptability, without being illegal in terms of any written legal code.

 

[pathia]

Forgive my ignorance, but what is illegal? Can not most rights be obtained through wills and POAs?

No, many of the states constitutional amendments include clauses that ban anything that ‘simulates marriage’ which means any contract written to confer similar rights is illegal. This includes POA’s, Wills, LLC’s and any other arrangement you can think of. They were written to block off ability to work property rights between two same sex individuals across the board.

 

[pathia]

What goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is not illegal in the sense that it leads to a person’s arrest.
The acts may be illicit, in terms of morality and social acceptability, without being illegal in terms of any written legal code.

I am referring to written contracts conferring property rights between same sex couples being made illegal, not the sex acts.

 

[RyanML]

What goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults is not illegal in the sense that it leads to a person’s arrest.
The acts may be illicit, in terms of morality and social acceptability, without being illegal in terms of any written legal code.

But ofcourse what is moral is not always socially acceptable and vice versa . Gay relationships have not always been socially acceptable, but they are becoming so. And among those who do disagree with it, there are many who believe that as long as it’s not being forced upon them it’s none of their business and so they “live and let live”. Then ofcourse there is pre-marital sex and contraception which is almost totally accepted by society but which the Church deems immoral.

 

[RyanML]

No, many of the states constitutional amendments include clauses that ban anything that ‘simulates marriage’ which means any contract written to confer similar rights is illegal. This includes POA’s, Wills, LLC’s and any other arrangement you can think of. They were written to block off ability to work property rights between two same sex individuals across the board.

Well that’s not good . I’m all for keeping marriage as the Church and society have always understood it and in the context which Our Lord blessed it, but blocking all means of legal protection and rights to my partner just seems cruel and discriminatory.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

No, many of the states constitutional amendments include clauses that ban anything that ‘simulates marriage’ which means any contract written to confer similar rights is illegal. This includes POA’s, Wills, LLC’s and any other arrangement you can think of. They were written to block off ability to work property rights between two same sex individuals across the board.

This makes no sense, are you saying the state has banned POA? Banned living wills? LLCs are a different issue.

I am referring to written contracts conferring property rights between same sex couples being made illegal, not the sex acts.

Property rights are to benefit children and the spouse who forfeited career opportunities for the children. I question if you are asking for things which you should not be asking for, and ignoring the opportunities you have ?

Just fyi – I and many fifty some things I know, go to zero or near zero net worth at our age due to children’s cars, college, braces, etc, etc. We are not foolish and we all tell the same thing we were up to $X00,000 then 3 colleges (120k-160k), 3 braces(14k), 3-5 cars(30k-60k), 10 years of triple car insurance premiums (30k), etc., etc. This is just to give you an idea why spouse have the property rights they. I am glad you have a happy relationship, property issues are not designed to be discriminatory but rather to reduce the cost of raising children

 

[RyanML]

This makes no sense, are you saying the state has banned POA? Banned living wills? LLCs are a different issue.

Property rights are to benefit children and the spouse who forfeited career opportunities for the children. I question if you are asking for things which you should not be asking for, and ignoring the opportunities you have ?

Just fyi – I and many fifty some things I know, go to zero or near zero net worth at our age due to children’s cars, college, braces, etc, etc. We are not foolish and we all tell the same thing we were up to $X00,000 then 3 colleges (120k-160k), 3 braces(14k), 3-5 cars(30k-60k), 10 years of triple car insurance premiums (30k), etc., etc. This is just to give you an idea why spouse have the property rights they. I am glad you have a happy relationship, property issues are not designed to be discriminatory but rather to reduce the cost of raising children

This all goes back to my point…should validly married couples who never have children benefit from many of the rights and benefits that are traditionally given to married couples?

 

[pathia]

This makes no sense, are you saying the state has banned POA? Banned living wills? LLCs are a different issue.

Property rights are to benefit children and the spouse who forfeited career opportunities for the children. I question if you are asking for things which you should not be asking for, and ignoring the opportunities you have ?

Yes, while we have paperwork that says we have POA/living will etc, a sufficiently pushy lawyer can shred them like paper. I have come to terms with my family, but my partner’s will swoop in and dissolve them in any way possible to tear us apart with their multiple lawyers on retainer.

And what opportunities? Both my partner and I have multiple disabilities, we can only work around half as much as a normal person, yet we have zero rights between us in an emergency. Once we figure out if he can have enough physical therapy to be fully functional, we will look to adopting children, which then I will stay home to care for them.

As for the costs of our relationship, just being dependent on one another. I am in the process of filing my third bankruptcy, I have had over $600,000 in medical debt due to my poor health and I am only 28. No one will insure me, so it just keeps piling up over and over and since my partner and I refuse to be leeches on the system and not work, we make too much to qualify for government aid.

 

[DebChris]

I am referring to written contracts conferring property rights between same sex couples being made illegal, not the sex acts.

I just read your post #65. You mentioned remaining celebrate. We are each called to be celebrate. For the couple who is married, that means fidelity to one another.
In my original post, I mentioned the fictional relationship, the partnership between Cal and Woodrow in Lonesome Dove. I have also mentioned the real life situation of two friends who chose to join households for financial reasons.
It is only within the past decade or so that partnership has become synonymous with a sexual relationship. I would like to see hospital contact information to read nearest relative or closest friend.
The term “couple” definitely implies the probability of a sexual relationship even when none exists.
I have no problem with the ability to transferring property between individuals regardless gender being legal. Just remove the sexual implication.