Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Aloysius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blizzard_Wolf said:
Though marriage began as a religious institution, it is now also a legal institution. As civil unions are strictly a part of the legal forum and make no attempt to deal with religious ceremonies, I see no valid argument why gay and lesbian people shouldn’t be able to enter into a legal civil union or marriage. The rights, privileges, and benefits afforded by civil unions and marriage don’t have much to do with religion, anyway… they include power of attorney in the event that a partner dies or falls ill, the ability to visit the bedside of an ill partner, and similar benefits. I don’t see how granting those rights/privileges/benefits goes against God in any way.

So in short, yes, I think Catholics can and should support civil unions.
Click to expand...
Most of those things that you mentioned can be easily provided for by visiting a lawyer. A civil union is not needed to get those things
 
Other_Eric said:
For now it is enough to show that lending any form of legitimacy to the same-sex couple is to participate in the sin of the sodomite.
Click to expand...
“sodomite”…now there’s a word who’s etomology is worth investigating!
 
wifeandmomoftwo said:
Most of those things that you mentioned can be easily provided for by visiting a lawyer. A civil union is not needed to get those things
Click to expand...
There are over a thousand different federal rights and benefits (as well as responsibilities) alone that go along automatically with marriage, many of which cannot be “easily provided for by visiting a lawyer”.

gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Only the latter is I believe prohibited.
Click to expand...
Unless I am quite mistaken, people who are incapable of physically consummating the marriage are also not allowed to be married in the Catholic Church. I don’t know the position on a woman who, for instance, has had a hysterectomy, though.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Yes and no. As long as the people involved are not Catholic the assumption is that they should be considered valid (legal in the sense of allowed.) just not sacramental. So in a round about way it could force those that see only a man & woman as being able to be considered civilly married (valid not a sacramental) to accept the legal status of other types of “marriage” so as you can see it is a yes and no situation.:eek:
Click to expand...
I am a bit doubtful that it is really a “yes and no” situation. Why should it be more of an issue than for those who are “forced” to accept the legal status of marriage between people who are divorced, who are related by closer blood ties than the Church allows, those who choose not to procreate, etc?
 
Legal and not sacramental. When something is legal and you hold a “tax” exempt status you are threatened with the loss of the said status. So the STATE could then threaten the CHURCH with this. I believe that it is in SWITZERLAND that a Bishop was forbidden to fire of priest for going against CHURCH teachings because of SECULAR laws. The USA might not be that far behind in this situation if the SECULAR law can trump the RIGHTS of the CHURCH.
 
“But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782
Click to expand...
At the time this was written there was no income tax and the churches paid no taxes. So in 1782 it did not matter what Jefferson’s neighbor did. But the neighbor was able to express his beliefs freely with no interference by the law. That same neighbor was able to start a church, hold services and place religious symbols even on publicly owned land.

The secular hedonistic anything goes anti-Christian groups now deny us this privilege.
 
KathleenElsie said:
At the time this was written there was no income tax and the churches paid no taxes. So in 1782 it did not matter what Jefferson’s neighbor did. But the neighbor was able to express his beliefs freely with no interference by the law. That same neighbor was able to start a church, hold services and place religious symbols even on publicly owned land.

The secular hedonistic anything goes anti-Christian groups now deny us this privilege.
Click to expand...
If you were a member of the sanctioned church (almost invariably Protestant–in Virginia it was the Church of England), then, yes, you got to do those things. Otherwise, you often had no vote in government, could hold no public office, could not hold public religious services, your clergy could be criminally prosecuted, you had to pay taxes specifically to support the state church and often had to attend it or pay fines, purchase or inherit land, educate your children in your faith, etc.

You need to do a little more research into the situation for religious minorities that existed in colonial America, especially for Catholics. I know in NC, Catholics were not allowed to hold public office until well into the 1800s. The ideal of separation of church and state was not instant, but has been a long hard road with the need to guard advances every step of the way against groups that would encourage a return to the “good old days”.

Catholics have a very great deal to be grateful for about America’s ideal of the separation of Church and State, even though the application of such is not always ideal.

I commend to you the context of those remarks
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm

traditioninaction.org/History/B_001_Colonies.html
*Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.

Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics.

In the decade before the American Revolution, most inhabitants of the English colonies would have agreed with Samuel Adams when he said (in 1768): “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act, or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” (3) *

There is much more of interest in the article.
 
KathleenElsie said:
Legal and not sacramental. When something is legal and you hold a “tax” exempt status you are threatened with the loss of the said status. So the STATE could then threaten the CHURCH with this. I believe that it is in SWITZERLAND that a Bishop was forbidden to fire of priest for going against CHURCH teachings because of SECULAR laws. The USA might not be that far behind in this situation if the SECULAR law can trump the RIGHTS of the CHURCH.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest that you should be glad you live in the US rather than Switzerland. I am afraid you are either going to have to provide some additional details or a link to a story about this issue in Switzerland, as I cannot find the information online in order to comment on it further. The Catholic Church has no inherent legal status under a government than the laws of that government give it. Neither does any other religious group.

Tax exemption is not a “right”, it is a privilege extended to groups who are willing to abide by the criteria for receiving such. The removal of privileged tax exempt status for any group is simply a leveling of the playing field, it is not a punitive fine.

There are specific protections for the tax exempt status of religious employers in many ways that are not available to employers in the general public. The Catholic Church is not currently requried by such to perform marriages for people who are divorced or required to hire those who do not agree with Church teachings, etc for their own in-house programs that they fund themselves. This is true for all religious groups recognized under tax law as such. Yes, there are specific restrictions on ways in which land may be used, lobbying performed, etc.

As to whether they may or may not be eligible for additional government funds, that is entirely up to whether or not they are willing to abide by the rules granting such funds, the same as every other group. There is no inherent right for the Catholic Church or any other religious group to receive other government grants and subsidies above what are available to other groups.

In other words, if you don’t want to have to play by the government’s rules to receive special treatment, don’t accept any funds from them, either in the form of public money or in privileged subsidies such as tax exemption.🤷
 
Mousey said:
I would have answered this differently if the meaning of Civil Unions were expanded.

Colorado voted down Civil Union precisely because it was limited (deliberately) to homosexuals only. It would have passed if it had wider application. Civil unions if we are going to have them should include anyone who wishes to establish an arrangement of living together. Civil unions should not be based on sexual orientation or on sex at all. Many here wanted people like an elderly relatives to live with other relatives and have the benefits and rights for each other. The homosexual element however was trying to do an end run around the ban of same sex marriage.
Click to expand...
You make a good point.
 
Other_Eric said:
You cannot imagine that the love of Christ is a saccharine sweet thing that contains within it no bitter pill for those who obstinately persist in evil. Nor can you imagine that Christ has called us to ignore the sinfulness of our brothers and to avoid doing what we must to keep them from error. I choose to believe when Christ spoke of Hell, that He was not bluffing. I further choose to believe that indifference to the plight of our brothers is a grave evil that would merit my own damnation should I permit such an attitude within myself.

I most definitely find nothing in the scripture that Jesus would condone this kind of mean ugly hateful treatment you suggest. Jesus wasn’t into making people obey, its about choice. It’s also nt about judgment. It is about shaking the dust off your shoes and moving on. It’s about turning the other cheek. I think your “brothers” would just as soon you didnt.

The question of the merits to be had in a “theocracy” versus the secular and Godless system we now find ourselves in is a question for another thread. For now it is enough to show that lending any form of legitimacy to the same-sex couple is to participate in the sin of the sodomite. As such the Christian must take care to see to it that such individuals do not have the benefit of any law, no matter how well-intentioned, that would facilitate their own disgusting hedonism.
Click to expand...
**You have a fairly bizarre notion of Christian responsibility, and of Christian charity. But as I said, that kind of mad dog rhetoric well, be my guest and keep announcing it. **
 
KarenNC said:
Unless I am quite mistaken, people who are incapable of physically consummating the marriage are also not allowed to be married in the Catholic Church. I don’t know the position on a woman who, for instance, has had a hysterectomy, though.
Click to expand...
You might be right. I was sure about the latter, less so about the others. It’s very hard to keep it straight, and well, it does seem most unfair to some. I just don’t get how two non-Catholics all the sudden have to annul for a 3rd party who is Catholic. It just seems so unfair. I mean my neighbor said her husband was married for 1 1/2 years when he was 19-21, divorced and his exwife he has no idea where she is and hasn’t seen her for 25 years. Now he’s supposed to find her and talk her into some annulment so his wife of 10 years can receive communion legally? It’s just makes no sense to me. She was heartbroken.
 
KarenNC said:
If you were a member of the sanctioned church (almost invariably Protestant–in Virginia it was the Church of England), then, yes, you got to do those things. Otherwise, you often had no vote in government, could hold no public office, could not hold public religious services, your clergy could be criminally prosecuted, you had to pay taxes specifically to support the state church and often had to attend it or pay fines, purchase or inherit land, educate your children in your faith, etc.

You need to do a little more research into the situation for religious minorities that existed in colonial America, especially for Catholics. I know in NC, Catholics were not allowed to hold public office until well into the 1800s. The ideal of separation of church and state was not instant, but has been a long hard road with the need to guard advances every step of the way against groups that would encourage a return to the “good old days”.

Catholics have a very great deal to be grateful for about America’s ideal of the separation of Church and State, even though the application of such is not always ideal.

I commend to you the context of those remarks
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/jevifram.htm

traditioninaction.org/History/B_001_Colonies.html
*Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.

Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics.

In the decade before the American Revolution, most inhabitants of the English colonies would have agreed with Samuel Adams when he said (in 1768): “I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act, or any other acts destructive of civil rights.” (3) *

There is much more of interest in the article.
Click to expand...
Very true. I’ve been surprised how many do not know of the persecution of Catholics in the early history of this country, and that it was the No establishment clause that protected them. Everytime I see this unnatural alliance of conservative catholics with the evangelical right on some of these issues I just cringe. these are the same folks who call Catholics the Whore of Babylon and a cult and would no doubt ban us completely if they had power.
 
KarenNC said:
Unless I am quite mistaken, people who are incapable of physically consummating the marriage are also not allowed to be married in the Catholic Church. I don’t know the position on a woman who, for instance, has had a hysterectomy, though.
Click to expand...
A woman who has had a hysterectomy, or who does not have a uterus due to some other natural or medical condition, but who is not impotent in regards to being able to physically perform the act of sexual intercourse is not impeded from entering into a marriage based on either this surgical or natural condition.

Since the experiences of many couples has shown that married women who have later had hysterectomies often continue to enjoy a sexual relationship with their husbands, this condition should not be presumed to cause impotence prior to a marriage (barring additional medical diagnosises from the woman’s physicians).
 
Leopard said:
A woman who has had a hysterectomy, or who does not have a uterus due to some other natural or medical condition, but who is not impotent in regards to being able to physically perform the act of sexual intercourse is not impeded from entering into a marriage based on either this surgical or natural condition.

Since the experiences of many couples has shown that married women who have later had hysterectomies often continue to enjoy a sexual relationship with their husbands, this condition should not be presumed to cause impotence prior to a marriage (barring additional medical diagnosises from the woman’s physicians).
Click to expand...
Thanks. So it is just male permanent impotence that would be a barrier according to the Catholic Church then?
 
KarenNC said:
Thanks. So it is just male permanent impotence that would be a barrier according to the Catholic Church then?
Click to expand...
No. Inability to have sexual intercourse on the part of either partner would be an impediment to marriage. But a hysterectomy does not necessarily prevent a woman from having intercourse, hence this would not necessarily be an impediment on her part. It would cause sterility, but sterility is not an impediment to marriage.
 
I assume that by your thread title you mean civil unions between two people with SSA. Therefore, since we are taught by Our Lord and by our Church to have love for others, and since encouraging/legitimizing a gravely disordered act is not loving - I would have to say NO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top