I would agree with points 1, 2 and with caveats, 4. I absolutely disagree with point 3Admittedly a) this was last Sunday’s (21st June) homily, and b) was in the UK anyway, but our homily touched on the then-forthcoming ruling briefly (because it was then known to be coming at the end of last week or the Monday after that, and also a few weeks after the Irish referendum), in the middle of a wider discussion about charitable thought. These were basically his points and personally I think they’re very reasonable:
I can’t say that the whole congregation agreed with everything he said but it strikes me as being fairly reasonable, and a compassionate, Catholic response to these social changes.
- While many (if not most or all!) Catholics in the US and elsewhere might quite rightly, strongly disagree with the same-sex marriage, we have a profoundly important duty to treat anyone who happens to be homosexual - married or otherwise - with the same dignity and respect with which we hope to be treated too;
- The Church cannot recognise same-sex marriages for all the obvious reasons;
- But as we have civil marriage anyway which also does not constitute a sacrament, there can be no argument against civil same-sex marriages either, and it would be a fundamental lack of Christian compassion to refuse to acknowledge that gay couples should be unable to mark their commitment as much as any heterosexual couple does or can outside of the Church, and obtain the same civil benefits;
- Increasing the civil rights of a minority (ie homosexuals) doesn’t hurt anyone, in fact it only is of benefit, so we could support it (as a civil institution only of course), though he did not suggest we should support it. He did also point out it is fundamentally unlike abortion which clearly constitutes grave harm and clearly should be opposed.
Then use the term civil union, which is what a civil marriage is; a contract by which two people agree to live together according to the rules set forth by the state, not by rules set by a religious group. One Union is sacred, the other civil.I would agree with points 1, 2 and with caveats, 4. I absolutely disagree with point 3
I have read much church teaching recently (the following from the USCCB)
usccb.org/news/2015/15-103.cfm
and the following from the Vatican:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
To not challenge same sex unions, and to call them “marriage” in the same breath as one man and one woman marriages, and thus give them the same rights is to show NO compassion to children, who might be adopted to gay couples. The fact of the matter, as taught by the Church, is that it is impossible to have a marriage of two men, or two women, as such, I will refuse to ever use the word “marriage” directly following the words “homosexual”, “gay”, or “same sex”. Reading what the Church teaches, no Catholic should either.
So, if the Church desires things to be differently named, the onus for a new name should be on the Church. Why don’t you do something with the word matrimony to separately describe the religious meaning? This issue should have been addressed when States started performing civil marriages. After this much time, one must assume that the Church has given tacit approval for the names being the same.Then use the term civil union, which is what a civil marriage is; a contract by which two people agree to live together according to the rules set forth by the state, not by rules set by a religious group. One Union is sacred, the other civil.
As a catholic you would not consider yourself married if you got “married” at a city hall; so why equate the two? Heterosexual couples only “married” civilly are not considered to be bound in marriage. If people only married civilly got divorced, they could go on to marry someone else in a catholic service, without obtaining an annulment, because they never had a licit marriage according to the church.
So the simple solution is to stop equating the two types of unions.
I agree with using the term “civil union” or “same sex union”, but my issue was with the term “civil marriage”. Just because a majority of judges give legal recognition to what ever grouping of people it wants, does not make it so logically or biologically.Then use the term civil union, which is what a civil marriage is; a contract by which two people agree to live together according to the rules set forth by the state, not by rules set by a religious group. One Union is sacred, the other civil.
As a catholic you would not consider yourself married if you got “married” at a city hall; so why equate the two? Heterosexual couples only “married” civilly are not considered to be bound in marriage. If people only married civilly got divorced, they could go on to marry someone else in a catholic service, without obtaining an annulment, because they never had a licit marriage according to the church.
So the simple solution is to stop equating the two types of unions.
I would like to think its as easy as this, but unfortunately its not.As a catholic you would not consider yourself married if you got “married” at a city hall; so why equate the two? Heterosexual couples only “married” civilly are not considered to be bound in marriage. If people only married civilly got divorced, they could go on to marry someone else in a catholic service, without obtaining an annulment, because they never had a licit marriage according to the church.
So the simple solution is to stop equating the two types of unions.
Yes I often wonder why the homilies aren’t more relevant to what we are witnessing.Not a word - which IMHO is not surprising, because my parish (and none I know of) ever says anything about the world. Just the usual stuff about that Sundays readings. Heaven forbid the priests mention something relevant to 2015.
Yet you know the Protestants will talk about this! No wonder people flee the church.
That is incorrect. A man and woman, where neither is Catholic, are held to be validly bonded in marriage if they were married by a justice of the peace. If both are baptized there are bound in a sacramental union even if their branch of Christianity no longer acknowledges the sacramental nature of marriage. That is the whole reason you have so many annulment requests come out of RCIA classses.Heterosexual couples only “married” civilly are not considered to be bound in marriage. If people only married civilly got divorced, they could go on to marry someone else in a catholic service, without obtaining an annulment, because they never had a licit marriage according to the church.
So only if your ceremony took place in a catholic church are you married? bummer…Then use the term civil union, which is what a civil marriage is; a contract by which two people agree to live together according to the rules set forth by the state, not by rules set by a religious group. One Union is sacred, the other civil.
As a catholic you would not consider yourself married if you got “married” at a city hall; so why equate the two? Heterosexual couples only “married” civilly are not considered to be bound in marriage. If people only married civilly got divorced, they could go on to marry someone else in a catholic service, without obtaining an annulment, because they never had a licit marriage according to the church.
So the simple solution is to stop equating the two types of unions.
Actually, the issue is about CHILDREN and the rights of CHILDREN to a mother and father. The legal recognition of man+man or woman+woman means that in adoption or child custody cases that those unions are equal to man+woman. The denies the complementarity of a man and a woman, and is detrimental to children. I am certainly not being disingenuous.We don’t make claims about the legitimacy of civil marriages or religious marriages outside the Catholic Church. In fact, many would (and rightfully so), have no qualms about the legitimacy of the marriage of non-Catholics executed in say, Lutheran, or Methodist churches.
So why would we now pick and choice which marriages by other religions are legitimate and which aren’t?
It could be because the issue in minds of many, although difficult to admit, is homosexuality and not the Sacramental nature of marriage.
So, the claim that the issue is civil marriage might be a bit disingenuous, when the issue actually is homosexuality.
Peace and all good!
Nothing that I heard.The historic Supreme Courts decision to legalize same sex marriage was this past Friday, June 26th. What did your parish do about it if anything at this weeks upcoming masses? Did your parish priest talk about the problem of this ruling in the homily or elsewhere?
This terrifies me. The more children are exposed to sin the more they feel and think its nothing wrong. The more children raised in sin, the more they expose and teach others that there is nothing wrong with it.Actually, the issue is about CHILDREN and the rights of CHILDREN to a mother and father. The legal recognition of man+man or woman+woman means that in adoption or child custody cases that those unions are equal to man+woman. The denies the complementarity of a man and a woman, and is detrimental to children. I am certainly not being disingenuous.
I would like to get as many responses as possible, so if your parish said nothing, please respond with a simple “nothing.”