Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

[St_Aloysius]

I guess this question stirs up a lot of emotions and in many mixed feelings… I understand that a lot of Christians (Catholics included) have homosexual friends or acquintances, and are able to testify to Christ by their own lifestyle in their company. Awesome, wouldn’t you agree?

But it occurs to me how hard it might be for said individuals to resolutely reject the passing of civil union laws, as well as the profound implications of such…

Which brings me to my final thought: Is it right for the Church to impose herself on those outside her walls like this? It goes without saying that the Church doesn’t condone same-sex marriages, but can she fairly try to prohibit those who do not see eye-to-eye on this matter from entering into some kind of union?

In essence, do you believe that while marriage between such couples is not to be condoned within or by the Church, do you believe it is only fair to homosexual individuals that it be offered elsewhere, in the form of civil unions, etc.?

I really am very curious as to your thoughts. I know the first answer will be something to the effect of: “We should enforce truth everywhere, even in the government! That means no civil unions.” But if “truth” is held in its fullness only by the Catholic Church, then doesn’t that mean that enforcing truth like this lands us with a theocracy of sorts?

What are your thoughts?

 

[Brendan]

No, we must always uphold moral truth. This does not make society any more of a ‘theocracy’ that when the Church opposes racism, murder, rape, slavery or torture.

In each of those cases, the Church trys to prohibt those who “don’t see eye to eye” with Church teaching from engaging in those activities, even when those involved are not Catholic.

Civil Unions are likewise evil and are to be opposed, both at the pulpit and at the ballot box.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Yes we can fully support them. They are in the Civil arena and this is a form of a union between two people who want to be monogamous lifelong partners, they should get the legal rights afforded other monogamous couples. Gender preference is not a defining characteristic for this matter.

 

[rpp]

The moral teachings of the Church transcend and pass religious boundaries. They are objective, not subjective in nature.

Homosexuality, despite the current fad, is a very serious disorder. To support unnatural self-destructive behavior is inherently evil.

In addition, civil unions that apply to people of the opposite sex, or to collections of more than two person (so-called “polyamourous” relationships) are also wrong because they violate the concept of sacramental marriage. Remember that the Church presume a marriage, even a civil one, is valid. Heterosexual civil unions violate this.

A Catholic cannot violate Catholic moral and support civil unions. It is never permissible to support evil, even if the intent is good.

 

[edwest2]

Even before I read this article:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

It occurred to me that once civil unions were allowed the flood gates would open to allow all sorts of mix and match relationships. The article in the link points to a document titled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage. It is signed by, among others, radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who did much to help create a separation and a type of class warfare between the sexes. A quote: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Along with her fellow traveler, and a Communist, Betty Friedan, who said that the family is “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Their goal is “freedom.” My question is, from what?

God bless,
Ed

 

[gam197]

originally posted by edwest2
It is signed by, among others, radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who did much to help create a separation and a type of class warfare between the sexes. A quote: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Along with her fellow traveler, and a Communist, Betty Friedan, who said that the family is “a comfortable concentration camp.”

A polygamy activist -huh. I noticed many college professors signed this statement.

beyondmarriage.org/signatories.html

 

[Rick09]

Catholics can’t support a civil law that stands against the moral law. The civil law is supposed to be in service of the moral law.

 

[Other_Eric]

The Church and Her followers have a moral obligation to see to it that every single article of faith is codified in civil law. The modern notion of a separation between Church and state is a poisonous one that will, in the end, bring this country to ruin. To give recognition to any attempted legal arrangement between persons engaging in same-sex sexual behavior is to forfeit one’s salvation. To be clear, this means no marriage, no civil unions, no wills, no private contracts, no healthcare surrogacy and no deeds held in tandem. Absolutely no legal means for such individuals to make an end-run around the moral law can be permitted. The love of Christ demands that we use every means at our disposal to rip such individuals apart from one another. A truly just society provides no safe harbor for sin!

 

[rpp]

The Church and Her followers have a moral obligation to see to it that every single article of faith is codified in civil law. The modern notion of a separation between Church and state is a poisonous one that will, in the end, bring this country to ruin. To give recognition to any attempted legal arrangement between persons engaging in same-sex sexual behavior is to forfeit one’s salvation. To be clear, this means no marriage, no civil unions, no wills, no private contracts, no healthcare surrogacy and no deeds held in tandem. Absolutely no legal means for such individuals to make an end-run around the moral law can be permitted. The love of Christ demands that we use every means at our disposal to rip such individuals apart from one another. A truly just society provides no safe harbor for sin!

While I am absolutely and unutterably opposed to civil unions, I am not certain that the suggestions advocated in this post represent Catholic moral teachings when viewed with the eye of charity.

 

[Other_Eric]

While I am absolutely and unutterably opposed to civil unions, I am not certain that the suggestions advocated in this post represent Catholic moral teachings when viewed with the eye of charity.

Perhaps it would help you to reread your own signature. It cannot be charity to confirm someone in their sin by passively permitting them any legal means of engaging in it.

 

[rpp]

Perhaps it would help you to reread your own signature. It cannot be charity to confirm someone in their sin by passively permitting them any legal means of engaging in it.

I suppose I should not be surprised by your aggressive attitude. However, for the sake of civil conversation, please avoid such comments like your first sentence as they demonstrate a serious lack of charity and do not contribute to a reasoned discussion.

Can you provide a link to a Church document that states that all Catholic moral teachings should be codified into civil law and that there should be no provision for a person to engage on free will? A citation from the Catechism, perhaps?

 

[Riley259]

Even before I read this article:

firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=330

It occurred to me that once civil unions were allowed the flood gates would open to allow all sorts of mix and match relationships. The article in the link points to a document titled Beyond Same-Sex Marriage. It is signed by, among others, radical feminist Gloria Steinem, who did much to help create a separation and a type of class warfare between the sexes. A quote: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Along with her fellow traveler, and a Communist, Betty Friedan, who said that the family is “a comfortable concentration camp.”

Their goal is “freedom.” My question is, from what?

God bless,
Ed

No, we should not support civil unions just like we should not support domestic partnerships.

 

[Filius99993]

Yes we can fully support them. They are in the Civil arena and this is a form of a union between two people who want to be monogamous lifelong partners, they should get the legal rights afforded other monogamous couples. Gender preference is not a defining characteristic for this matter.

Um, no, we can’t. The Catechism really clearly states that homosexual unions are to be frowned upon. But not on the homosexuals. So- no. Homosexuality lacks the procreation element of marriage. Even if homosexuals adopt and want to have children, they don’t actually make them through sex. So the sexual part is clearly based off of the orgasm.

 

[KarenNC]

Remember that the Church presume a marriage, even a civil one, is valid.

By this do you mean to say that the Catholic Church presumes that any marriage deemed legally valid is also automatically sacramentally valid?

 

[KathleenElsie]

By this do you mean to say that the Catholic Church presumes that any marriage deemed legally valid is also automatically sacramentally valid?

No not sacramentally valid. Valid only if there are no impediments to the marriage. Valid in form.

 

[KarenNC]

No not sacramentally valid. Valid only if there are no impediments to the marriage. Valid in form.

To say “Remember that the Church presume a marriage, even a civil one, is valid” is not the same as saying “The Church presumes a marriage, even a civil one, is valid only if there are no impediments to the marriage”. Unless you mean impediments as determined by civil law rather than impediments as determined by canon law.

In other words, I was not under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that civil marriages between people who have living former spouses (divorced) or that those between, say, first cousins are indeed valid marriages. Am I mistaken?

 

[KathleenElsie]

To say “Remember that the Church presume a marriage, even a civil one, is valid” is not the same as saying “The Church presumes a marriage, even a civil one, is valid only if there are no impediments to the marriage”. Unless you mean impediments as determined by civil law rather than impediments as determined by canon law.

In other words, I was not under the impression that the Catholic Church teaches that civil marriages between people who have living former spouses (divorced) or that those between, say, first cousins are indeed valid marriages. Am I mistaken?

Please read the word impediments in my post. It was a short post.

 

[KarenNC]

Please read the word impediments in my post. It was a short post.

Since I used the word “impediments” in my reply as quoting your post, it is patently obvious that I did indeed read the word. What you have not made clear is whose standards of impediment you are referencing. Divorce and certain levels of consanguinity are impediments to marriage according to canon law, but those same situations are not impediments to marriage in civil law (details depending on the area). In what light does the Church view those marriages that are legal according to civil law but not according to canon law?

It is not a complex question, but a very important distinction for the purposes of this discussion. Did you mean:
A) the Catholic Church presumes that any marriage that is legal according to civil law is a valid marriage.
or
B) the Catholic Church presumes that any marriage that is allowed by civil law is a valid marriage as long as that marriage is not impeded by restrictions that exist in Catholic canon law

Basically, is the marriage of two divorced persons with living former spouses presumed a valid marriage according to the Catholic Church? Is the marriage of first cousins presumed a valid marriage according to the Catholic Church? Are these people considered married or fornicating or adulterous?

 

[KathleenElsie]

B, but I believe you already know this.

 

[truagape]

. Homosexuality lacks the procreation element of marriage. Even if homosexuals adopt and want to have children, they don’t actually make them through sex. So the sexual part is clearly based off of the orgasm.

To be consistent with that logic, couples who are pass the age of child bearing, who are physically incapable of procreation (disease or physical dysfunction), and who opt to not have children would also lack the procreation element of mariage. Should these be allowed to marry?