I
IanM
Guest
" Catholics Pray for Clarity in St. Peter’s Square After Pope Francis’ Civil Unions Remarks"
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
" Catholics Pray for Clarity in St. Peter’s Square After Pope Francis’ Civil Unions Remarks"
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
O
OraLabora
Guest
Here’s some clarity. There is nothing inherently immoral about allowing civil unions. If gay monks nuns can live chastely among members of the same sex… and there are more than a few… then so too can a same-sex couple. I know older folks who married (heterosexual) with no intent of engaging in sexual relations, whether licit or not in their case. Same-sex couples who are not sexually active can surely do the same if they desire, at the same time protecting the financial and legal rights of their long-term partner.
It’s an insult, in fact, to gays, to assume that they’re automatically going to sin if they live together. If living together in a house is an “occasion of sin”, then so too is it for gays living in a monastery, and yes I know of several. With God anything is possible.
It’s like saying “the Internet is immoral” because it distributes porn, or “the phone is immoral” because one uses it to gossip or plot a crime. A civil union in itself is not automatically immoral. It’s what one does with it.
Legal recognition should be available for all co-dependent relationships. My widowed mother and her spinster sister lived together for 30 years for economic reasons, after my father passed away. They became economically co-dependent over time. They did not have the benefits of a civil union (pension and inheritance rights, etc.). Likewise an older gay couple may no longer be sexually active (and have repented sacramentally for the days they were). But they may be economically co-dependent and it would be immoral to have one partner left in the cold if the other died.
There is really nothing doctrinally unsound here. The Church really has no business telling people who they can or cannot live with and what legal protections they can or cannot have. She can define what is sin and strongly urge people to avoid same, but do not automatically assume living together means sin…
It’s an insult, in fact, to gays, to assume that they’re automatically going to sin if they live together. If living together in a house is an “occasion of sin”, then so too is it for gays living in a monastery, and yes I know of several. With God anything is possible.
It’s like saying “the Internet is immoral” because it distributes porn, or “the phone is immoral” because one uses it to gossip or plot a crime. A civil union in itself is not automatically immoral. It’s what one does with it.
Legal recognition should be available for all co-dependent relationships. My widowed mother and her spinster sister lived together for 30 years for economic reasons, after my father passed away. They became economically co-dependent over time. They did not have the benefits of a civil union (pension and inheritance rights, etc.). Likewise an older gay couple may no longer be sexually active (and have repented sacramentally for the days they were). But they may be economically co-dependent and it would be immoral to have one partner left in the cold if the other died.
There is really nothing doctrinally unsound here. The Church really has no business telling people who they can or cannot live with and what legal protections they can or cannot have. She can define what is sin and strongly urge people to avoid same, but do not automatically assume living together means sin…
Last edited:
F
F_Marturana
Guest
Many years ago, I worked with a man who had gotten his girlfriend pregnant.
They weren’t planning on marriage, but they were committed to supporting the baby together. Mom didn’t have health insurance. So they had a “civil union” so she could have health insurance and both could care for their baby.
They weren’t planning on marriage, but they were committed to supporting the baby together. Mom didn’t have health insurance. So they had a “civil union” so she could have health insurance and both could care for their baby.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Typical critics of the Pope seeking “clarity”- really just sowing discord.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
Correct.There is nothing inherently immoral about allowing civil unions.
I never lived in a monastery, but I would imagine that the relationship between monks is different than partners in a civil union.If gay monks nuns can live chastely among members of the same sex… and there are more than a few… then so too can a same-sex couple.
It’s kind of naive to assume otherwise.It’s an insult, in fact, to gays, to assume that they’re automatically going to sin if they live together.
Not all relationships are the same. Marriage supports families, which is a good thing for a society. Not every relationship provides such a benefit. I’m sure there are plenty of examples against this, but they are pretty much the exception, not the rule.Legal recognition should be available for all co-dependent relationships.
Really? Again, I’m sure you can find exceptions but that doesn’t change the truth. Couples don’t cohabitate because they just want to save on utilities.but do not automatically assume living together means sin…
O
OraLabora
Guest
Well that’s precisely why my mother and her sister cohabitated for 30 years. That and mutual support. It was most certainly not for sex!!!Couples don’t cohabitate because they just want to save on utilities.
Look up “particular friendships” in the context of religious life. It’s a euphemism.I never lived in a monastery, but I would imagine that the relationship between monks is different than partners in a civil union.
Last edited:
S
StudentMI
Guest
Typical dismissal of concern from fellow Catholics which is sowing discord in the Church.Typical critics of the Pope seeking “clarity”- really just sowing discord.
M
MikeInVA
Guest
I wouldn’t refer to a sisters living together as a couple, or cohabitating.
I think you’re stretching the definitions to fit your answer. And proving your case with an exception.
I think you’re stretching the definitions to fit your answer. And proving your case with an exception.
B
BigBoom
Guest
If it’s a sin of scandal for a heterosexual couple to live together without being married, how would it not be the same for a homosexual couple?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.