P
pray4me
Guest
I’m wondering what the viewpoint of the Catholic Church is on co-living with a member of the same sex in a civil union, while retaining a celibate lifestyle.
- Status
W
White_Tree
Guest
Well, minus the civil union part, it sounds like your describing the life of a priest or a monk.
Why does a civil union need to be part of this arrangement?
A
aroosi
Guest
T
ThomasMT
Guest
If there is sexual attraction, there is near occasion of sin.
R
redcatholic
Guest
Why have a civil union with no sexual contact? Is this a common situation among gay people?
Legal reasons? Health insurance perhaps? Had a family member who had been cohabitating in a heterosexual relationship announce that they had finally gotten married…in order for him to get health insurance on his wife’s employer’s policy.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
For a huge number of reasons including next of kin, probate, benefits, and because people might love each other even if sex is off the table for religious or physical disability reasons.
R
redcatholic
Guest
Hmmm. Ok. Is this common?
Don’t know how common it is…but I do know that it happens. @Tis_Bearself listed some other potential reasons beside health insurance.
R
redcatholic
Guest
It just seems so odd that those things are only solved by a civil union or marriage. Could civil unions provide these protections for an alderly parent and offspring?
Last edited:
Thank you for bringing this aspect out.
I often find myself in agreement the Muslim concept of makruh, which roughly translates to “disliked”. I don’t know if Catholicism or Christianity has an equivalent to this. Sometimes I find that many Catholics have a mentality of “how far can I go without committing sin?” or “what is the bare minimum that is required of me?”. I suppose that’s a good start, it’s certainly better than “blowing off” the requirements of religion entirely, but I don’t think it goes far enough.
An example would be doing work, business, or commerce on Sundays. We have been back and forth on these forums about what is permissible and what is not permissible, and there is a disturbing trend towards “pretty much anything is allowed, because after all, our society is up and running 24/7/365, ordering things online doesn’t ‘feel’ like real work or commerce, and as long as it’s not physical work that is being done for another person for payment, then it’s okay”. Don’t say I’m “building a straw man”, I’m just attempting to synthesize what the consensus seems to be.
And how does this relate to the topic? Well, where Sunday work is concerned, I don’t tie myself into little casuistic knots, or worry whether I’m going to commit venial sin, mortal sin, or what have you, I just calmly resolve the matter by saying “I don’t need to do this today”, or on the other hand, “I really do need to get this out of the way today”. Simple as that.
And so it is with someone who might wish to live in the kind of union discussed here. Is it possible for two homosexuals, perhaps both “over the hill”, to live chastely? Of course. There are heterosexual couples who do the same thing. Scandal is one consideration, to be sure, but it is not the only consideration. We are not obliged to avoid scandal at grave cost or harm to ourselves. Civil marriage, or civil union, confers certain benefits. How badly are the benefits needed? How grave is the need for two people to live together and receive these benefits? Are there other reasons a couple might need to live together — assistance to a disabled partner, or just being alone with no one else in life to care for them? In the opposite, and I brought this up the other day, I know an ostensibly celibate, heterosexual elderly couple who live together because they would lose certain benefits if they married. They are very explicit that they live platonically. Nobody gives it a second thought.
I often find myself in agreement the Muslim concept of makruh, which roughly translates to “disliked”. I don’t know if Catholicism or Christianity has an equivalent to this. Sometimes I find that many Catholics have a mentality of “how far can I go without committing sin?” or “what is the bare minimum that is required of me?”. I suppose that’s a good start, it’s certainly better than “blowing off” the requirements of religion entirely, but I don’t think it goes far enough.
An example would be doing work, business, or commerce on Sundays. We have been back and forth on these forums about what is permissible and what is not permissible, and there is a disturbing trend towards “pretty much anything is allowed, because after all, our society is up and running 24/7/365, ordering things online doesn’t ‘feel’ like real work or commerce, and as long as it’s not physical work that is being done for another person for payment, then it’s okay”. Don’t say I’m “building a straw man”, I’m just attempting to synthesize what the consensus seems to be.
And how does this relate to the topic? Well, where Sunday work is concerned, I don’t tie myself into little casuistic knots, or worry whether I’m going to commit venial sin, mortal sin, or what have you, I just calmly resolve the matter by saying “I don’t need to do this today”, or on the other hand, “I really do need to get this out of the way today”. Simple as that.
And so it is with someone who might wish to live in the kind of union discussed here. Is it possible for two homosexuals, perhaps both “over the hill”, to live chastely? Of course. There are heterosexual couples who do the same thing. Scandal is one consideration, to be sure, but it is not the only consideration. We are not obliged to avoid scandal at grave cost or harm to ourselves. Civil marriage, or civil union, confers certain benefits. How badly are the benefits needed? How grave is the need for two people to live together and receive these benefits? Are there other reasons a couple might need to live together — assistance to a disabled partner, or just being alone with no one else in life to care for them? In the opposite, and I brought this up the other day, I know an ostensibly celibate, heterosexual elderly couple who live together because they would lose certain benefits if they married. They are very explicit that they live platonically. Nobody gives it a second thought.
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself
Patron
An elderly parent and offspring likely have enough legal protection for their relationship under the laws of Western countries already, that the civil union is not necessary. It might be possible to take advantage of a civil union relationship if the people were more distantly related to the point where they did not already have legal mechanisms in place.
One argument in favor of civil unions, that was at one point even supported by some Catholic clergy, is that they facilitate these kinds of legal protections for cases not involving romantic relationships of same-sex couples. Also, the fact that it’s not called a “marriage” makes it easier for the Church to refuse to perform it, especially in non-US countries that have more extensive anti-discrimination laws and fewer freedom of religion laws.
R
redcatholic
Guest
So if I’m an old person and I have brother or a friend I should get a civil union to have these legal protections or privileges? There’s no other legal document? That seems odd. But I don’t know much about the subject. It just seems that for healthcare, medical decisions etc that there should be something other than a document used primarily for romantic relationships. The weird thing with Covid is now it doesn’t matter if you are married married, in a lot of places you aren’t allowed in the hospital your spouse is in. Not looking forward to a civil union with my mom! Yikes!
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Not fpr brother, because again, sibling relationships (And parental relationships) already have legal protection available. Civil unions are for distantly related people and unrelated people. So maybe you could get one with a friend if your state had them. However, if your close relatives are all dead or disappeared, you might be able to make your friend a power of attorney or something instead. One reason they are used is when the people in the union have other close relatives (Like their parent, sibling etc) still living and want to make sure that in the event of their illness, death etc the person making decisions and so forth is their civil union partner, not their parent who they haven’t spoken to in 10 years and who threw them out of the house for being gay or whatever. The law would normally give next of kin rights to the parent or sibling if the person doesn’t have a spouse.
Additionally, if you are in USA, I don’t know what the status is of civil union law in your particular state. Civil union law, like marriage law, is handled state by state. It is not a new idea and has been around since 1999 in the US, but not every state has a civil union law and I’m not sure that every state recognizes the civil union laws of other states. In addition, some states give civil unions less legal protection than marriage, and some states don’t offer them any more since the Supreme Court decision.
Civil unions were much discussed in the time before the gay marriage decision from the Supreme Court because opinions varied on whether some type of civil union law was sufficient to meet the needs of gay couples, without them needing to have marriages. One argument against it was that civil union law in USA was not very developed, and there was a lot of uncertainty how the courts would rule in the case of a civil union dissolving and there being an issue of child custody and child visitation if the couple had had or had been raising a child during their civil union.
My impression is that nowadays most gay couples in USA are not interested in having a civil union when they can just get married. The law of marriage is more settled, there are mechanisms already set up for divorce and custody and so forth if it doesn’t work out, and the marriage must be recognized in all 50 US states. So it’s a less risky alternative.
Some background articles you can read if you’re interested:
Last edited:
- Status