civil unions?

[JReducation]

You spent a year here? I hope you managed to visit many of our Churches and Cathedrals.

I was there for a year and loved it. Your churches are beautiful, but you’re pizza is the worse that I have ever tasted.

Many thanks for your posts and take on board all you say with regards to due courtesy towards our bishops. However, where does one draw the line though? Do we keep mum and fully acquiesce to bishops when they publicly express an opposing position to Rome and its decree? Where or when should it tilt if it teeters between the bishops’ Holy Office and what one has been taught?

The problem we have over here is not simply a matter of disagreement with bishops. On Monday, 5th December, the government will allow religious civil partnerships in churches, synagogues etc where the governing bodies of those permit celebration of the unions. As I have mentioned previously, blessings of civil partnerships already take place in a Catholic Church in Soho. So, bearing the Soho business in mind, together with our country’s very contentious equality laws, Archbishop Nichols’ recent statement giving assent to civil partnership has now placed our parish priests in a precarious situation as they are now seemingly obliged to participate and bless civil partnerships.

With all due respect to the whole thread, I think I’ll respond to your point in pieces.

I wish that the good bishop had said more. As I said when I first read the statement, I felt that more needed to be said as it was a tad confusing. I believe that I understand what he means, because I’ve seen other statements that he has made on the whole issue of stability and his opposition to gay marriages. The the distinction is not as sharp as it needs to be, not in this statement.

In the USA, we have an increasing number of Benedictine and Franciscan bishops, which is interesting in itself. Lately, they seem to be saying the same thing to the people of their dioceses. It comes out of the admonitions of St. Francis, admonitions that he wrote for the laity and which every Franciscan, even a bishop is bound to teach. They are really very helpful in a situation such as your own.

I believe that Archbishop Chaput paraphrased St. Francis the best when he said that we the faithful do not own the Church. Yes, there are times when the bishops deserve to be called on the carptet, but not by the laity. They have superiors for that purpose and there are systems in place for the laity to file their concerns all the way up to the Vatican. He pulls from St. Francis that the bashing of bishops out of anger, hatred, vindictiveness or simply arrogance, believing that one has the right to do so, is not the Catholic thing to do. When a person goes about expressing his or her displeasure in an ugly manner and fails to use the proper systems, the faithful, the clergy and the bishops have a right to demand that this person back down.

If one visits the Vatican website, there are departments, prefects and sacred congregations for the different issues that arise. If one is not sure where to send one’s concern, the Sacred Congregation for the Faith is a good place. If it’s not in their jurisdiction to respond, they will forward it. Believe me, the Vatican is very good about forwarding legitimate complaints and they do respond. It may take a little time, because these are busy people. However, you will hear back from them.

The place to start is always with the bishop himself. The faithful have the right to communicate their concerns to their bishop. I have done it many times with the bishops where I have served. I have never said anything to anyone. This is what these Franciscan bishops are now telling their people. Use St. Francis’ method. Do penance, work on your salvation, if something interferes with your salvation, use discretion, good manners and humility in communicating with the proper person.

I don’t think that there is anything wrong with a letter to a bishop asking for clarification as to why something is happening or not happening. The keyword is “ask”. When you write to a bishop and you tell him what he should be doing or not doing, then you’re making yourself his equal or his superior. That’s inappropriate. We are not their equals and we’re not their superiors. They are the shepherds and we are the sheep. The sheep don’t dictate to the shepherd.

However, the sheep have needs. One of those is the need to understand what’s going on. We can certainly ask. The bishop may offer an explanation, that we may not like. At least, he has heard us out. If we feel that we do not like the explanation, we can continue to the dialogue until the bishop says, “Enough.”

At that point, if we’re still very unhappy, there is the Roman Curia. We quietly send copies of everything to them. If they say, “Enough”, then we bite the bullet. Rome has spoken. Just like any other organization or family, someone has to have the last word and it may not always be me or it may not always be the word that I want to hear.

 

[JReducation]

What the bishops seem to be saying is the same thing that Francis said. They’re putting it in modern language. We don’t use the Internet, newspaper, TV and radio to complain. It may get the bishop’s attention, but it will also do a great deal of harm to the Church. What often ends up happening is that we inadvertently feed the sharks who are looking for something to hold against the Church.

St.Francis was a very wise man. He lived in a time of great heresies and great attacks against the Church. He did not take the Church’s laundry out and hang it in the town square. He transformed the Church from within. No one will ever know what he did to change the Church or what he said. He took those things to his grave with him. We know that he was taken very seriously. He was the only religious brother ever to be invited to a Council and given a vote. He was on of the Council Fathers at the IV Lateran Council. He was not a priest or an abbot. But he was a Council Father. Pope Gregory IX, who canonized him would later write about their conversations and how Francis was his friend and teacher.

The same thing is true about St. Catherine of Sienna. Everything that we know about her interactions with the hierarchy was released long long after her death. During her lifetime, no one ever knew. She would physically punish those in her little circle who spoke harshly about the clergy. She actually whipped them into silence and submission. These men and women had a great love for the Church. They knew how to bring the Church around through prayer, penance and very discrete fraternal correction. We need to learn to use all three systems: pray, do penance and use discrete fraternal correction. The Church is not opposed to that.

My advice, never jeopardize your salvation trying to save someone else. If you have to go on the attack, be uncharitable, be violate boundaries, give the enemies of the Church more ammunition, where is the good in that? How does that help your soul?

St. Francis wrote for his brothers and sisters that the key to great holiness was never forgetting that every human being has more dignity than we do, no matter how sinful. We must unite our voices to that of the Crucified Lord who as the Psalmist says, “I am a worm, not a man.” (Ps 22:6).

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Santi2]

I was there for a year and loved it. Your churches are beautiful, but you’re pizza is the worse that I have ever tasted.

But, we’re English…we do not do pizza! We belong to the roast and Yorkshire pudding brigade. Spaghetti wasn’t even popular when I was a child. news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/1/newsid_2819000/2819261.stm

I am truly grateful for your revert to my queries. In the meantime, I provide a link to Archbishop Nichols’ response by way of CNA, as well as William Oddie’s commentary in the Catholic Herald mentioned in the article. So, we have been heard.

Archbishop Nichols responds to critics of his civil unions approach
Rome, Italy, Dec 2, 2011 / 02:03 pm (CNA).- Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster is being accused of defying Vatican guidelines on homosexual civil partnerships. In response, he says he is simply trying to defend the “profound human good” of traditional marriage.

“We’ve got to find the ways of speaking to people about the positive values of marriage as it’s always been understood, while not getting boxed off by somehow being accused of being homophobic,” Archbishop Nichols told CNA on Dec. 1 in Rome.
…
catholicnewsagency.com/news/archbishop-nichols-responds-to-critics-of-his-civil-unions-approach/

catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2011/11/30/archbishop-nichols-says-he-is-in-favour-of-gay-civil-unions-but-that-legally-includes-the-right-to-adopt-so-why-did-we-close-down-our-adoption-agencies/

 

[JReducation]

Both of these came out on the same day. However, CNA seems to have spoken to the bishop.

I understand what the bishop wants to do, but I doubt that it will work the way that he hopes it will. If I’m understanding him, he’s saying that a civil union, because there is no mention in it about marital rights (such as the marital bed) is neutral. He’s saying that since it is de facto legal, we have to recognize that it exists. And we have to respect those who are in civil unions.

Allow me to start from the end. We certainly must show respect for those who are in civil unions or any other legal status. Human dignity is not forfeited because of one’s legal status. We’re OK there. No one should ever be treated with disrespect or unjustly.

We certainly have to recognize that something exists legally. How can you address what you refuse to acknowledge. We’re OK there too. There is such a law in England. We acknowledge this, but we also believe that such a law is mistake.

The laws the govern civil unions do not specify the conjugal bed. Here is where His Excellency is hoping for something that I believe is not going to happen. He seems to be hoping that people will understand that one can recognize those legal benefits of civil unions that are either moral or morally neutral, such as the right to own property jointly, the right to inherit or the right to make medical decisions for another person, etc. The Church certainly has no opposition to any of these.

The problem here is that even though the legal language may not address sexual intercourse, very few people enter into civil unions unless they have a romantic relationship. What stands out in people’s minds is not these other neutral or positive aspects of the law, but the 500 lb gorilla in the middle of the room, which is the sexual element.

I’m not there, so I can’t say what it right or not right for the English people. I learned from personal experience that the only thing that Americans and English have in common in King George. We certainly do not speak the same language. And yes, King George was once our King, before we became the USA. But that’s another thread.

My feeling is that it would work better to refrain from mentioning the term “civil union” and simply go straight to the human rights and say that the Church respects and even protects the following human and civil rights for all people, straight or gay, Catholic or non-Catholic. Then he could have spoken to the gay marriage proposal.

He could have closed with the statement that I thought was very good.

“The convictions about marriage mean that this is not something that the Church has invented nor the State has invented. And therefore it is not, as it were, at the disposal of the Church nor the State, if you like, to change,”

I understand his not wanting the Church and Catholics to be labeled “homophobes”, but the truth is that whenever you stand up for a particular moral position, someone is going to stick you with a political label. If you’re anti-abortion and pro-life, someone will stick you with being “opposed to women’s rights or women’s reproductive health issues” or just plain “anti woman” In other words, labeling is unavoidable.

Moving along, I would like to point out the difference between Mr. Oddie’s article and that of Mr. Kerr. The former poses some legitimate concerns, but then proceeds to not so subtly question the integrity of the bishop. The reaction that he gets from the comments below is very predictable. There is anger and vitriol rather than solid scholarly theological reflection. Mr. Oddie proves the concern that the spiritual masters always had and proves that they were right in their insistance on discretion when reacting to problems in the Church. Indiscretion, triggers more indiscretion.

Mr. Kerrs article on CNA, lays out the points, but does not call the bishop’s integrity into question. He simply states the facts. The Church says X and the Bishop said Y. That article can be picked up by one of the departments in the curia and they can focus on the bishop. That’s their job.

Mr. Oddie’s article does not help the Roman Curia at all. At the end of the day, the Roman Curia does not care how angry you are at your bishop. People have been angry at bishops and popes since the time of Peter and Paul. The Curia wants to know two things.

a. What did the bishop say?

b. What is your question or concern?

They don’t want to hear what we think about the bishop or the bishop’s statement. They function in a very linear manner.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Santi2]

. we also believe that such a law is mistake.

You hit a number of nails on the head, Br JR. I would, however, just pick on the above as that is the issue on which the worm turns because Archbishop Nichols’ statement appears to imply that it is not. The BCEW position has moved from here:

“…civil partnership for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. They would in the long term undermine marriage and the family…They are not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have already been substantially addressed or can be largely addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately.”

to this:

"We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.”

What are our concerns? In addition to Catholic moral issues etc., the Archbishop’s statement will be used as a springboard for secularism and by dissidents within the Catholic community to further advance their causes. Unfortunately, other bishops, priests and laity who do not share Archbishop Nichols’ view will be the ones most affected. It is also unfortunate that the response does not in any way resolve matters…

As to William Oddie of the Catholic Herald: Before his conversion to Catholicism, Mr Oddie was a member of the clergy and the Anglo-Catholic Chaplaincy in Oxford University. One can reasonably assume that he gives a fair amount of thought before he sets pen to paper and I reckon, under the circumstances, it was fair commentary. I agree with you, however, on the harshness contained in the combox. But, those would have been expressed regardless of the tone used by Mr Oddie i.e. even if one wrote in the manner of Mr Kerr, comments against Archbishop Nichols would have been the same.

 

[JReducation]

You hit a number of nails on the head, Br JR. I would, however, just pick on the above as that is the issue on which the worm turns because Archbishop Nichols’ statement appears to imply that it is not. The BCEW position has moved from here:

“…civil partnership for same sex couples would not promote the common good, and we therefore strongly oppose them. They would in the long term undermine marriage and the family…They are not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have already been substantially addressed or can be largely addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately.”

to this:

"We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision.”

What are our concerns? In addition to Catholic moral issues etc., the Archbishop’s statement will be used as a springboard for secularism and by dissidents within the Catholic community to further advance their causes. Unfortunately, other bishops, priests and laity who do not share Archbishop Nichols’ view will be the ones most affected. It is also unfortunate that the response does not in any way resolve matters…

As to William Oddie of the Catholic Herald: Before his conversion to Catholicism, Mr Oddie was a member of the clergy and the Anglo-Catholic Chaplaincy in Oxford University. One can reasonably assume that he gives a fair amount of thought before he sets pen to paper and I reckon, under the circumstances, it was fair commentary. I agree with you, however, on the harshness contained in the combox. But, those would have been expressed regardless of the tone used by Mr Oddie i.e. even if one wrote in the manner of Mr Kerr, comments against Archbishop Nichols would have been the same.

It’s a pity that the bishop’s statement lacks clarity and it’s equally pitiful that the faithful (including religious and clergy) feel the need to take their outcry to the internet.

Bishop Fellay of the SSPX made a wonderful statement about a three days ago. He said that the Internet was a breeding ground for gossip, speculation and even misinformation. I would add to this that it’s a feeding ground for anti-Catholic sharks.

The Church has a system in place that Catholics can use to express concerns and ask questions, which is discreet, respectful and very efficient. I use it all the time. If I have a question or concern, I send the bishop’s secretary an email requesting an interview with His Excellency or if I don’t need a face to face conversation, I simply ask my question and I always get an answer. Sometimes I have had to wait up to three months, but the bishop doesn’t work for me. I don’t pay his salary, so why should I expect him to drop what he’s doing to answer my questions or address my concerns?

I always go back to what St. Bonaventure said about St.Francis. He taught the Catholic man to remember, “I’m a a worm, not a man.” In short, I’m not that important and neither is what I have to say. Therefore, I’ll just have to wait until the bishop can take care of those who are more important than I am.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Santi2]

It’s a pity that the bishop’s statement lacks clarity and it’s equally pitiful that the faithful (including religious and clergy) feel the need to take their outcry to the internet.

I agree with you and, unfortunately, the latter will always be the effect of the former. Our BCEW is actually tech media savvy and would be aware of comments on their actions, knowing that members of the Catholic laity are much better informed about faith matters together with the moral issues accompanying it. And, if the English Catholic can rant about the weather and the lack of provisions by local authorities on grit, one cannot expect any less of them about moral issues and statements coming from the BCEW.

Bishop Fellay of the SSPX made a wonderful statement about a three days ago. He said that the Internet was a breeding ground for gossip, speculation and even misinformation. I would add to this that it’s a feeding ground for anti-Catholic sharks.

Yes, modern communication does give rise to misuse. However, it also provides access to information and support in the way that CAF functions and is beneficial. Perhaps, if the internet were as widely used in 1971, the Heenan Indult would have had wider effect over here because the majority, who only had access to print media, believed that the celebration of the TLM was universally forbidden. But, that’s for another thread and perhaps rather redundant in view of Summorum. The internet is also beneficial in that Catholic communities outside of the UK are given an insight into our circumstances over here i.e. as the “Great British Experiment” unfolds against the Dowry of Mary. It is also through priests who blog that we find comparison to the spirit of St John Fisher and the Tyburn martyrs. And, we take our cue from them when all else fails and we can only ask to be carried in prayer.

The Church has a system in place that Catholics can use to express concerns and ask questions, which is discreet, respectful and very efficient. I use it all the time. If I have a question or concern, I send the bishop’s secretary an email requesting an interview with His Excellency or if I don’t need a face to face conversation, I simply ask my question and I always get an answer. Sometimes I have had to wait up to three months, but the bishop doesn’t work for me. I don’t pay his salary, so why should I expect him to drop what he’s doing to answer my questions or address my concerns?

I always go back to what St. Bonaventure said about St.Francis. He taught the Catholic man to remember, “I’m a a worm, not a man.” In short, I’m not that important and neither is what I have to say. Therefore, I’ll just have to wait until the bishop can take care of those who are more important than I am.

Unfortunately, time is not a luxury we can afford to squander away and refer to the latter part of my previous post in #16 and queries in #18, Br JR.

As an aside, the C of E has just released a statement.
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8932064/Church-of-England-insists-it-will-not-have-to-host-civil-partnerships.html

and as expected it has been challenged…and it’s not even Monday yet.
google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iK4dMpyWIFVt53F6a2BoBbBIZIQQ?docId=N0236041322934392400A

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you and, unfortunately, the latter will always be the effect of the former. Our BCEW is actually tech media savvy and would be aware of comments on their actions, knowing that members of the Catholic laity are much better informed about faith matters together with the moral issues accompanying it. And, if the English Catholic can rant about the weather and the lack of provisions by local authorities on grit, one cannot expect any less of them about moral issues and statements coming from the BCEW.

Yes, modern communication does give rise to misuse. However, it also provides access to information and support in the way that CAF functions and is beneficial. Perhaps, if the internet were as widely used in 1971, the Heenan Indult would have had wider effect over here because the majority, who only had access to print media, believed that the celebration of the TLM was universally forbidden. But, that’s for another thread and perhaps rather redundant in view of Summorum. The internet is also beneficial in that Catholic communities outside of the UK are given an insight into our circumstances over here i.e. as the “Great British Experiment” unfolds against the Dowry of Mary. It is also through priests who blog that we find comparison to the spirit of St John Fisher and the Tyburn martyrs. And, we take our cue from them when all else fails and we can only ask to be carried in prayer.

Unfortunately, time is not a luxury we can afford to squander away and refer to the latter part of my previous post in #16 and queries in #18, Br JR.

As an aside, the C of E has just released a statement.
telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8932064/Church-of-England-insists-it-will-not-have-to-host-civil-partnerships.html

and as expected it has been challenged…and it’s not even Monday yet.
google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iK4dMpyWIFVt53F6a2BoBbBIZIQQ?docId=N0236041322934392400A

My concern and that of most clergy and religious remains the same. The Internet is a wonderful tool for acquiring information, but it is also being used as a tool for feeding the sharks.

The Church has systems that we can use to ask questions, ask for clarifications and express our displeasure. The Church has laws that protect our right to do so.

When clergy, religious or laity use the Internet to air the Church’s laundry it invites attacks on the Church, which can be avoided. As Bishop Fellay says, it breeds miscommunication. It solves nothing, because it’s not the proper means for communicating with Church authority. And it creates an image of a Church divided.

It is true that every family has internal conflicts, battles, disagreements and problem children. Except for the Holy Family, every family is subject to the effects of Original Sin. But when the non-Catholic sees the ranting and bickering, the bashing and vitriol between Catholics, he or she does not think of us as a family with a family feud. They go to the presses and they publish that 90% of Catholics believe in 25% of what the Church teaches. These numbers are usually wrong. 90% of Catholics may gripe and complain about 75% of what the Church teaches, but 90% of teenagers gripe and complain about 75% of what their parents teach and command. At the end of the day, most grow out of it or simply learn that you’re not going to agree on everything, but you can tow the line and it won’t kill you. This part is not reported, because this is not what we’re saying on the Internet.

In a recent interview of a Franciscan community on EWTN, they asked the brothers if they ever disagreed or quarreled. The superior responded that they disagree often. They never quarrel, because it’s not allowed by the rule. If ever there is a quarrel, he kills it on the spot.

The interviewer asked him to give some examples of things they disagree on to which he responded, “None of your business.” He went on to say that the life of the brothers was to reflect to the world what should be the life of the universal Church. And I quote, “I can disagree with my brother, but you can’t. He’s my brother and if you disagree with him, you can count on me protecting him from you. That’s how families function and the Church is a family.”

I thought it was a wonderful testimony that speaks to how we deal with issues in our dioceses and in our parishes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

 

[Santi2]

My concern and that of most clergy and religious remains the same. The Internet is a wonderful tool for acquiring information, but it is also being used as a tool for feeding the sharks.

The Church has systems that we can use to ask questions, ask for clarifications and express our displeasure. The Church has laws that protect our right to do so.

When clergy, religious or laity use the Internet to air the Church’s laundry it invites attacks on the Church, which can be avoided. As Bishop Fellay says, it breeds miscommunication. It solves nothing, because it’s not the proper means for communicating with Church authority. And it creates an image of a Church divided.

It is true that every family has internal conflicts, battles, disagreements and problem children. Except for the Holy Family, every family is subject to the effects of Original Sin. But when the non-Catholic sees the ranting and bickering, the bashing and vitriol between Catholics, he or she does not think of us as a family with a family feud. They go to the presses and they publish that 90% of Catholics believe in 25% of what the Church teaches. These numbers are usually wrong. 90% of Catholics may gripe and complain about 75% of what the Church teaches, but 90% of teenagers gripe and complain about 75% of what their parents teach and command. At the end of the day, most grow out of it or simply learn that you’re not going to agree on everything, but you can tow the line and it won’t kill you. This part is not reported, because this is not what we’re saying on the Internet.

In a recent interview of a Franciscan community on EWTN, they asked the brothers if they ever disagreed or quarreled. The superior responded that they disagree often. They never quarrel, because it’s not allowed by the rule. If ever there is a quarrel, he kills it on the spot.

The interviewer asked him to give some examples of things they disagree on to which he responded, “None of your business.” He went on to say that the life of the brothers was to reflect to the world what should be the life of the universal Church. And I quote, “I can disagree with my brother, but you can’t. He’s my brother and if you disagree with him, you can count on me protecting him from you. That’s how families function and the Church is a family.”

I thought it was a wonderful testimony that speaks to how we deal with issues in our dioceses and in our parishes.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :christmastree1:

Br JR, English Catholics have been at loggerheads with the BCEW for some time now and the road to Rome is well traveled.

As to public display of disagreements with the BCEW, many would be of the opinion that conduct and statements which imply a departure from Rome’s decree weakens the Church’s position in the public square over here. Proponents of gay marriage within and without the Catholic Church have already taken Archbishop Nichols’ public statement as a “genuine shift” and “a sane response towards gay marriage”. Excepting the vitriol, aren’t we bound by duty to openly criticise the Archbishop in that respect? Does the image of a Church divided have priority over our children’s wellbeing where Catholic schools over here already deliver unsound catechesis?

 

[JReducation]

Br JR, English Catholics have been at loggerheads with the BCEW for some time now and the road to Rome is well traveled.

As to public display of disagreements with the BCEW, many would be of the opinion that conduct and statements which imply a departure from Rome’s decree weakens the Church’s position in the public square over here. Proponents of gay marriage within and without the Catholic Church have already taken Archbishop Nichols’ public statement as a “genuine shift” and “a sane response towards gay marriage”. Excepting the vitriol, aren’t we bound by duty to openly criticise the Archbishop in that respect? Does the image of a Church divided have priority over our children’s wellbeing where Catholic schools over here already deliver unsound catechesis?

As I said, this statement by His Lordship is a tad confusing and that’s not good. Having said that, to answer your question, always aim for the greater good.

If you can achieve a correction in the course of the ship without calling negative attention to the Church, then that’s the way to go. At the very least, that should be attempted first. The way to do that is to use the systems that the Church has created.

What I notice about Catholics in the UK is that they don’t use the Church’s systems too often. In fact, my experience of the Brits is that they don’t like any kind of system. Whether it’s political or religious, there is a tendency in the UK to be very public and very confrontational. What I’m seeing is that at the end of the day, the anarchists get their way.

The reason may be because the rational citizens are giving in to the methods of debate and problem resolution used by the anarchists, which is confrontation and hostility. One ends up joining them when one really wanted to oppose them. One joins them when one uses their methods.

This may be true of the hierarchy as well. In being diplomatic, one may appearing to be sympathetic. We have to be careful. We certainly don’t want to be argumentative. That is not the Catholic way. Catholics have a long history of diplomacy and we’re actually very good at it. But if we look at our expert diplomats such as St. Bernard or St. Thomas More, they drew a line in the sand.

Bernard never lost his head. Those with whom he dealt never pushed to the point of a confrontation. Poor Thomas did lose his head, because Henry was not going to back down. In Thomas’ case, the issue had to come out into the public square, but it was Henry’s fault, not Thomas’.

That’s how we should proceed, like Thomas More or a Bernard of Clairveaux. Let the other side show its dirty laundry first.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[kleary]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

That should answer it.

 

[edwest2]

To JReducation -

You are right. We should not feed the sharks and allow the process to occur as it should. However, the rank and file Catholic in the pew may see this on some newsfeed which does not address the process. You see? It’s very common for the media to take parts of statements and to leave out others. This has been the case outside and sometimes, inside the Church as well.

By my own experience of almost two years ago, I was able to put a friend in a position to handle my money, deal with my possessions and dispose of them as he saw fit. The real problem is what does this lifelong commitment issue mean for the gay community? Nothing except a benefits package? For years, gay pride was more than dressing or partly dressing in women’s clothing or prancing about in ladies’ high heels. The sexual component has always been the primary issue. Neutral science will tell you that.

Yes, we should treat all with respect but civil unions? For what? Should I enter into a civil union with my sister for the sole reason of getting a benefits package?

Homosexual persons have been living together for a long time, and will continue to do so. But it’s irrational to think civil unions are just a couple of guys living in the same house for life. Can I get a roommate and get a civil union, even though we’re both straight?

It’s not making any sense to invent something called a civil union.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Lapey]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

That should answer it.

Well done Kleary…you beat me to it. I’ll point out some high point of Cardinal Ratzinger’s comments;

Fron P. 5;
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, **clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. **One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

P 10 is aimed directly at Catholic politicians. This one leaves no wiggle room for a politician or any Catholic for that matter, especially an archbishop.

“When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.”

To publically support such laws would be promoting “gravely immoral” matter.