Civil Unions: Can Catholics Support Them?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St_Aloysius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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...
I know the history. I was just saying what would be lost and not gained as it stands now.
 
KarenNC said:
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. Search here in CA it was about three months back. 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. As do you and I.

Tax exemption is not a “right”, it is a privilege extended to groups who are willing to abide by the criteria for receiving such. Whose criteria? The removal of privileged tax exempt status for any group is simply a leveling of the playing field, it is not a punitive fine. And yes it is punatitive. No one ever said life was an even playing field.

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.🤷 As I have siad many times prior that organizations should not take government money if they want no strings. But now the strings tend to be attached even if you don’t take the money.
Click to expand...
 
SpiritMeadow said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe we have just grown to see that we have more in common then we ever thought we could have.
 
KarenNC said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, both, depending upon whom.

Two divorced non-catholic/non-orthodox who remarry to others have valid second marriages (but not first marriages) should they convert to Catholocism.

Quite simply put, I would rather see the term Marriage deleted and replaced by civil union when/if it is opened to homosexuals and/or polygamists.
 
Aramis said:
Quite simply put, I would rather see the term Marriage deleted and replaced by civil union when/if it is opened to homosexuals and/or polygamists.
Click to expand...
I’m curious, because I have seen it recommended elsewhere, are you suggesting that heterosexuals also be given a civil union instead of a civil marriage? Religious or sacramental marriages would be unaffected since they aren’t administered by the government, but any couple who wanted a non-religious marriage would receive a civil union. Is this what you meant?
 
KathleenElsie,

First, it is fairly easy to break up a quote if you want to reply in sections. Look at the text when it comes up in the reply window. The poster’s comments will be framed in what are called HTML tags, instructions to the program on how to display them. The ones you are interested in are quote ] at the beginning and / quote ] at the end (take out the spaces). This is “begin quote” and “end quote”. Since the text starts with a “begin quote”, you simply type in an “end quote” tag where you want to break. Type your reply, then put a “begin quote” tag at the start of the next section of text you want to quote. Repeat as needed. This allows you to reply to specific sections of quoted text in a way that others may reply to it. By typing it within the original quote, even changing colors, it doesn’t show up for someone else trying to reply and involves awkward cutting and pasting.

Now to answer your points:
  1. Whose criteria? The criteria of the agency determining the privilege. If I want a drivers’ license, I have to meet the criteria of the licensing agency. If I want to not pay taxes like everyone else, I have to meet the criteria set forth in the tax laws to qualify for such, whether I am a church, a charity, a school, etc.
  2. Punative? No, adding an additional tax because it was a church would be punative. The fact that it doesn’t have to pay taxes is a privilege. Life may not be an even playing field, but in the US we certainly strive to make our laws such (a little thing called “equal representation under the law”.
    Of course, you were advocating a return to the “good old days” when different religions and indeed different churches within the same religion did not have an even playing field.
  3. The Switzerland story----Sorry you can’t remember any details or find a link. Guess we can’t discuss it then.
  4. Strings----You will need to be a bit more specific in terms of situations where you see that churches that accept no government funds or subsidies are subject to any strings that are not applied to every other organization equally.
 
IMHO, and hopefully in union with the Magisterium of the Church I so love,
  1. Civil unions are just a secular attempt to misshape the sacrament of Matrimony into something else. It encourages immoral union between people, it is the identity of gravely disordered acts, so I am against it.
  2. I do believe that since we are all to love all people, who are in the image and likeness of God, I hope there are not other laws that prevent people with a homosexual lifestyle from having access to health care benefits and any other personal rights people in the image of God should have (right to a home,m right to a job,m etc.). I sure wouldn’t want anyone discriminating against me for my sins, since we are all sinners!
  3. If we accept and promote “same sex marriage”, then the reason we did so was not a moral objective truth, but because it was a desire of people based on their own relativistic perception of morality. Therefore, I think it can be argued this spins our society into a more gravely disordered world, as there would really be no objection that these people could make over unions with multiple men and/or women, or even unions between humans and animals, or any combination. Communes, polygamy, bestiality will all likely be legalized in civil unions down the road. All it requires is enough people that want it, vs. having any type of society that believes in objective truths.
Once unions are established as distinct from a sacrament based on God’s truth, anything goes - and society spins further into a death spiral. So we should vehemently disagree with the lifestyle, but love the people as Jesus loves us.
 
…I was wondering when someone was going to mention relativism. Well done, awalt, you hit it pretty darn on its head.
 
Dale_M said:
I’m curious, because I have seen it recommended elsewhere, are you suggesting that heterosexuals also be given a civil union instead of a civil marriage? Religious or sacramental marriages would be unaffected since they aren’t administered by the government, but any couple who wanted a non-religious marriage would receive a civil union. Is this what you meant?
Click to expand...
Yes; that would be preferable to Gay or Plural “marriage.”
 
St_Aloysius said:
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?
Click to expand...
The moral law applies to us all. The Church imposes nothing. She states what is true.
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.?
Click to expand...
What is fair about allowing what is wrong and bad for society?
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?
Click to expand...
Does that make laws against robbery and murder theocratic?
 
rpp said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thank you for stating that, rpp. I couldn’t agree more.👍
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Yep, when all else fails, slap a charge of relativism down.
Click to expand...
…relativism is how civil unions are justified by its supporters… so it makes perfect sense to discuss relativism too. It’s been left out. If we are to discuss a matter to its fullest extent, we should obviously discuss all aspects of the matter. 🙂
 
Dale_M said:
I’m sorry to intrude, but would this be the thread?
Swiss Court Says Labor Law Forbids Bishop from Removing Dissident Priest from Parish
Click to expand...
From the article referenced in that thread, it appears that the person in question was functioning as the parish administrator, which, unless I am mistaken, is not the same position as priest (I am unable to find any articles about it that are in English, but not from Catholic sources). I am not familiar with labor laws in Switzerland, but would hazard a guess that it would depend on whether the parish administrator is hired by the parish or by the diocese. From the article it appears that the bishop was indeed able to revoke the priest’s license and canonical mission, but could not force the parish to fire the parish administrator against the will of the parish. It was the parish that took the bishop to court over his attempts to remove the man in question from the position of parish administrator, not the state.

So, to sum up, the bishop was not in fact prevented from removing the priest’s ability to function as a functionary of the Church, but was prevented from firing him from an administrative position against the will of the parish that employed him.

It would appear that she should be rejoicing that she lives in the US, where, unlike Switzerland, companies are not forced to pay taxes to specifically support a church whether they want to do so or not and where she is not requested to pay taxes to support a church to which she does not belong.

ch.ch/private/00029/00042/00373/00380/index.html?lang=en

There is no official state church; however, all of the cantons financially support at least one of the three traditional denominations–Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, or Protestant–with funds collected through taxation. In all cantons, an individual may choose not to contribute to church taxes. However, in some cantons, private companies are unable to avoid payment of the church tax. A religious organization must register with the Government in order to receive tax-exempt status. There have been no reports of a religious group applying for the church taxation status that the traditional three denominations enjoy.
 
awalt said:
IMHO, and hopefully in union with the Magisterium of the Church I so love,
  1. Civil unions are just a secular attempt to misshape the sacrament of Matrimony into something else. It encourages immoral union between people, it is the identity of gravely disordered acts, so I am against it.
  2. I do believe that since we are all to love all people, who are in the image and likeness of God, I hope there are not other laws that prevent people with a homosexual lifestyle from having access to health care benefits and any other personal rights people in the image of God should have (right to a home,m right to a job,m etc.). I sure wouldn’t want anyone discriminating against me for my sins, since we are all sinners!
  3. If we accept and promote “same sex marriage”, then the reason we did so was not a moral objective truth, but because it was a desire of people based on their own relativistic perception of morality. Therefore, I think it can be argued this spins our society into a more gravely disordered world, as there would really be no objection that these people could make over unions with multiple men and/or women, or even unions between humans and animals, or any combination. Communes, polygamy, bestiality will all likely be legalized in civil unions down the road. All it requires is enough people that want it, vs. having any type of society that believes in objective truths.
Once unions are established as distinct from a sacrament based on God’s truth, anything goes - and society spins further into a death spiral. So we should vehemently disagree with the lifestyle, but love the people as Jesus loves us.
Click to expand...
I can applaud most of your argument with the exception of the second item. Civil unions do indeed misshape the sacrament of marriage and lead society down a path of relativism which promises future horrors. Legally facilitating such immoral unions by any means is not a show of compassion, it contradicts the love we are meant to have for one another. It is with this in mind that we should look to such things as wills, private contracts, healthcare surrogacy, deeds held in tandem and other official means by which such unions are being accomplished even now under our noses.

In the first place we must be clear about what we mean when we speak of the Christian virtue of love or charity. By that we mean neither that we harbor pleasant feelings for others nor that we are necessarily generous with temporal goods such as food, shelter or employment. What it does mean is that we desire for others their highest good, which is God.

In the case of those with same-sex attractions, the nature of their concupiscence is such that neither food, drink, clothing, shelter nor employment will bring them out of their sins and towards God. Indeed, providing these things might even foster a sense of complacency in the subject and drive them further from salvation. Charity demands, therefore, that we use every means to legally discourage such unions.

Further, let’s dispense with the notion that we do not want people discriminated over their sins or temptations. This is clearly false and out of line with Church teaching. The Church herself sees prudence in restricting Holy Orders from those who have same-sex attractions precisely because of their temptations. This is the same prudence that impels us to avoid stationing a glutton in the food pantry, entrusting a badge and a gun to a sociopath, making a careless lay-about an air traffic controller or providing a job as a bank officer to a kleptomaniac. The sins that we are tempted towards provide for us legitimate grounds for discriminating against people. We need more of this, not less.
 
Other_Eric said:
I can applaud most of your argument with the exception of the second item. Civil unions do indeed misshape the sacrament of marriage and lead society down a path of relativism which promises future horrors. Legally facilitating such immoral unions by any means is not a show of compassion, it contradicts the love we are meant to have for one another. It is with this in mind that we should look to such things as wills, private contracts, healthcare surrogacy, deeds held in tandem and other official means by which such unions are being accomplished even now under our noses.

In the first place we must be clear about what we mean when we speak of the Christian virtue of love or charity. By that we mean neither that we harbor pleasant feelings for others nor that we are necessarily generous with temporal goods such as food, shelter or employment. What it does mean is that we desire for others their highest good, which is God.

In the case of those with same-sex attractions, the nature of their concupiscence is such that neither food, drink, clothing, shelter nor employment will bring them out of their sins and towards God. Indeed, providing these things might even foster a sense of complacency in the subject and drive them further from salvation. Charity demands, therefore, that we use every means to legally discourage such unions.

** Further, let’s dispense with the notion that we do not want people discriminated over their sins or temptations**. This is clearly false and out of line with Church teaching. The Church herself sees prudence in restricting Holy Orders from those who have same-sex attractions precisely because of their temptations. This is the same prudence that impels us to avoid stationing a glutton in the food pantry, entrusting a badge and a gun to a sociopath, making a careless lay-about an air traffic controller or providing a job as a bank officer to a kleptomaniac. The sins that we are tempted towards provide for us legitimate grounds for discriminating against people. We need more of this, not less.
Click to expand...
The emphasis is mine.

From the Catechism
**2358 **The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
**2359 **Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Click to expand...
I am unable to reconcile the first quote with the second. However, I believe the second quote carries a bit more weight. Therefore, as a faithful Catholic, I must ignore the first quote.
 
KarenNC said:
Thanks. So it is just male permanent impotence that would be a barrier according to the Catholic Church then?
Click to expand...
If the man never consummates the marriage there is no marriage, however if he consummates the marriage let’s say once then the marriage condition is met. So if a man and woman hold a marriage ceremony live together 50 years and never consummate the marriage they are two individuals living as brother and sister no sin related but no marriage.
 
rpp said:
The emphasis is mine.

From the Catechism

I am unable to reconcile the first quote with the second. However, I believe the second quote carries a bit more weight. Therefore, as a faithful Catholic, I must ignore the first quote.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the paragraph from the Catechism again. The word “unjust” is an important qualifier. I see nothing in my argument that is unjust, therefore the discrimination I advocate is not only in line with Catholic teaching but a moral obligation for those who claim to follow Christ.
 
Other_Eric said:
I suggest you read the paragraph from the Catechism again. The word “unjust” is an important qualifier. I see nothing in my argument that is unjust, therefore the discrimination I advocate is not only in line with Catholic teaching but a moral obligation for those who claim to follow Christ.
Click to expand...
I suggest you read the paragraph from the Catechism again.

It says they must be accepted and treated with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Denying someone who suffers with SSA, whether they act on it or not, food clothing and shelter not only violates this, it is unjust. Yet that is what you suggested.

What you suggest is an Auschwitz for homosexuals. Or have I misunderstood you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top