Good article: Prominent gay rights magazine honors pope on 77th birthday

[ReConverted]

The reason I’m posting this is simply to show that a lot of Gay people and groups love Pope Francis for the right reasons, and it’s important to know this. Also, I’m purposely NOT including the link to the original article in “The Advocate” since many may find it offensive. If you do wish to find that article, it’s an easy search.

Prominent gay rights magazine honors pope on 77th birthday.

news.yahoo.com/prominent-gay-rights-magazine-honors-pope-77th-birthday-120711297–sector.html

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The oldest gay rights magazine in the United States named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” as the pontiff marked his 77th birthday on Tuesday by inviting homeless people to join him for breakfast in the Vatican.

The Advocate magazine said it gave Francis the honour because, although he is still against homosexual marriage, his pontificate so far had shown “a stark change in (anti-gay) rhetoric from his two predecessors”.

It hailed as a landmark his famous response last July to a reporter who asked about gay people in the Church: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”

The Advocate noted that the Catholic gay organisation “Equally Blessed” called the phrase “some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people”.

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The oldest gay rights magazine in the United States named Pope Francis its “Person of the Year” as the pontiff marked his 77th birthday on Tuesday by inviting homeless people to join him for breakfast in the Vatican.

The Advocate magazine said it gave Francis the honour because, although he is still against homosexual marriage, his pontificate so far had shown “a stark change in (anti-gay) rhetoric from his two predecessors”.

It hailed as a landmark his famous response last July to a reporter who asked about gay people in the Church: “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?”

The Advocate noted that the Catholic gay organisation “Equally Blessed” called the phrase “some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people”.

The Vatican has stressed the pope’s words did not change Church teachings that homosexual tendencies are not sinful but homosexual acts are.

Still, the gay community and many heterosexuals in the Church have welcomed what they see as a shift in emphasis and a call for the Church to be more compassionate and less condemning.

The Advocate said no-one should “underestimate any pope’s capacity for persuading hearts and minds in opening to LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transsexual) people”.

Last week, Time magazine gave Francis the same honour, crediting him with shifting the message of the Catholic Church towards mercy and away from condemnation while capturing the imagination of millions.

The Vatican said the pope, the former Cardinal Jorge Mario of Argentina, marked his 77th birthday with his customary morning Mass in the guest house where he has opted to live instead of spacious papal apartments used by his predecessors.

Four homeless people who live on the streets near the Vatican were invited to take part by a Vatican official who administers the pope’s charity and stayed for breakfast with the pope and his aides, the Vatican said.

 

[Colorad007]

And homosexuality is still serious sin. Anyway, didn’t the pope decry “lobbying” by gays?

If gay folks really wanted to know Christ and our Catholic faith, I would suggest the Catechism and the Bible rather than The Advocate or CNN. But I suspect that gays folks who want to better know Christ and His Church already know that. This is just shoddy ideological flourish–“see, even the Pope is on our side!” No, he is not. And if he were, you would still be wrong.

I am so sick of Time and this magazine and the whole lot of the media making a pathetic mockery of our Church, and using the Pope to do it. The question is, when will Catholics stop patting themselves on the back and rolling around in the good publicity and face the profound moral idiocy we are dealing with?

 

[ReConverted]

Unbelievable…

It’s a very positive article. The magazine praised Pope Francis, disagreements notwithstanding. They didn’t use him at all.

Some people won’t even take “Yes” for an answer…

 

[_Abyssinia]

Is this magazine legally allowed to use a photograph of the Pope Francis?

It would be wise for this magazine to remember that homosexual sex / sex outside of marriage was sinful when Pope Benedict was Pope, still sinful now Pope Francis is Pope. Doctrine on this has not changed.

The Advocate cites the Catholic organisation Equally Blessed, but this organisation came out with a statement criticising Pope Francis’ stance on adoption and marriage after Pope Francis was announced as the next Pope. The organisation the Advocate cites has criticised Pope Francis on issues the Advocate would oppose Francis on. Equally Blessed’s statement

If he truly desires to share the Gospel with all people, Pope Francis will come to realize that many of those created in God’s image are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. It is our fervent hope and continuing prayer that Francis will break new ground in opening a conversation with LGBT people so that he may come to know a little about their experiences of God’s grace, mercy and love.

"We are mindful some of our new pope’s past writings will be profoundly discouraging to LGBT Catholics. During an unsuccessful campaign against marriage equality legislation in Argentina, he wrote things that, frankly, could be considered hateful, calling the legislation that authorized same-sex marriage “a machination of the Father of Lies.” He also said adoption by same-sex parents was a form of discrimination against children. These are not statements worthy of a pope, or, for that matter, anyone in pastoral ministry.

boston.com/lifestyle/blogs/bostonspirit/2013/03/lgbt_catholic_coalition_cautio.html

 

[McCall1981]

And homosexuality is still serious sin. Anyway, didn’t the pope decry “lobbying” by gays?

If gay folks really wanted to know Christ and our Catholic faith, I would suggest the Catechism and the Bible rather than The Advocate or CNN. But I suspect that gays folks who want to better know Christ and His Church already know that. This is just shoddy ideological flourish–“see, even the Pope is on our side!” No, he is not. And if he were, you would still be wrong.

I am so sick of Time and this magazine and the whole lot of the media making a pathetic mockery of our Church, and using the Pope to do it. The question is, when will Catholics stop patting themselves on the back and rolling around in the good publicity and face the profound moral idiocy we are dealing with?

Unbelievable…

It’s a very positive article. The magazine praised Pope Francis, disagreements notwithstanding. They didn’t use him at all.

Some people won’t even take “Yes” for an answer…

I completely disagree. I think the point of this article is, like Colorado007 said, to say “the Pope is on our side, he said homosexuality (and abortion etc) are ok now, so we like him”.

They are saying “yes” only because they think he is approving their lifestyle (or at least because they can present it that way to misinform others). They are blatently, using him, and are causing great harm by doing so

 

[Elizium23]

Equally Blessed is a coalition of Call To Action, DignityUSA, Fortunate Families, and New Ways Ministry. It is a clearly anti-Catholic organization that in no way represents the teaching of the Catholic Church. They wish to set themselves up as an alternative Magisterium and seeks to dictate policy on faith and morals to bishops and others in the hierarchy.

 

[frobert]

If gay folks really wanted to know Christ and our Catholic faith, I would suggest the Catechism and the Bible rather than The Advocate or CNN.

You are 100% correct. Pope Francis wants gays to come into the CC and discover the Catechism. A journey of 1000 miles begins with the first step.

 

[frobert]

I completely disagree. I think the point of this article is, like Colorado007 said, to say “the Pope is on our side, he said homosexuality (and abortion etc) are ok now, so we like him”.

They are saying “yes” only because they think he is approving their lifestyle (or at least because they can present it that way to misinform others). They are blatently, using him, and are causing great harm by doing so

There is goodwill on both sides. The Advocate is aware of church teachings and don’t delude themselves that teachings will be changed but they welcome an opportunity for civil discourse with Pope Francis.

As far as the Pope being used. He is a big boy who knows how to take care of himself. Would he be Pope if didn’t? Please don’t underestimate our Holy Father.

 

[ReConverted]

Froburt, you knocked it outta the park.

There is goodwill on both sides. The Advocate is aware of church teachings and don’t delude themselves that teachings will be changed but they welcome an opportunity for civil discourse with Pope Francis.

As far as the Pope being used. He is a big boy who knows how to take care of himself. Would he be Pope if didn’t? Please don’t underestimate our Holy Father.

 

[ReConverted]

They are saying “yes” only because they think he is approving their lifestyle (or at least because they can present it that way to misinform others). They are blatently, using him, and are causing great harm by doing so

If you read the article, there’s no way of coming to that conclusion except for willful ignorance or just plain contempt for another sinner… Either one is a pitiable condition.

 

[ReConverted]

“The Pharisee and Tax Collector”

The Gospel according to Saint Luke. 18:9-14

“And to some who trusted in themselves as just, and despised others, he spoke also this parable: Two men went up into the temple to pray: the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, as also is this publican. I fast twice in a week: I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven; but struck his breast, saying: O god, be merciful to me a sinner. I say to you, this man went down into his house justified rather that the other: because every one that exalteth himself, shall be humbled: and he that humbleth himself, shall be exalted.”

 

[YoungTradCath]

There is goodwill on both sides. The Advocate is aware of church teachings and don’t delude themselves that teachings will be changed but they welcome an opportunity for civil discourse with Pope Francis.

As far as the Pope being used. He is a big boy who knows how to take care of himself. Would he be Pope if didn’t? Please don’t underestimate our Holy Father.

Well, sure the Pope is a big boy, but someone else using his words to insinuate–which may or may not be the case here, I didn’t read the article–really isn’t up to his and has no bearing on whether he are a big boy or not. People will use the Pope regardless of if he is a big boy, and it has little to no bearing on how mature he is.

 

[CrossofChrist]

What change in rhetoric?

Hey Advocate, have you stopped beating your wife?

 

[JReducation]

The Advocate’s Person of the Year: Pope Francis

Rather than go to a link that tells me what someone else wrote, I went to The Advocate itself. To my surprise, the article is very positive toward the Holy Father and it is not by any means disrespectful toward Catholics or the Catholic Church.

One thing that impressed me about the article is that this writer is one of the few that actually quoted the pope correctly when he said that we speak too much about abortion, homosexuality and contraception. Most writers have been quoting part of that sentence and leaving out, “I am a son of the Church.”

Also, the writer of this article quotes the entire statement that the Holy Father made on the plane on his way home from Brazil. I heard that interview live. The media cuts the Holy Father’s response at “Who am I to judge,” leaving out the words that lead into that sentence.

The writer does not flatter Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, but he does not have to do so. As long as he is polite in his disagreement. The truth is that he’s more polite than some Catholic bloggers were to Bl. John Paul, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Go read back issues of Rorate Caeli and compare.

We must learn to accept the good regardless of where it comes from. If these folks have a warm feeling toward the Pontiff, we should simply learn to say “Thank you for loving our Holy Father.” Leave it at that.

You don’t take someone’s praise and gratitude and throw it back in their face, because there is something about the person that you do not like or with which we disagree. The Holy Father spoke about this in one of his homilies last week.

Rejecting the messenger because you reject the messenger doesn’t make sense

 

[malachi_johnson]

The Advocate’s Person of the Year: Pope Francis

Rather than go to a link that tells me what someone else wrote, I went to The Advocate itself. To my surprise, the article is very positive toward the Holy Father and it is not by any means disrespectful toward Catholics or the Catholic Church.

One thing that impressed me about the article is that this writer is one of the few that actually quoted the pope correctly when he said that we speak too much about abortion, homosexuality and contraception. Most writers have been quoting part of that sentence and leaving out, “I am a son of the Church.”

Also, the writer of this article quotes the entire statement that the Holy Father made on the plane on his way home from Brazil. I heard that interview live. The media cuts the Holy Father’s response at “Who am I to judge,” leaving out the words that lead into that sentence.

The writer does not flatter Bl. John Paul and Pope Benedict, but he does not have to do so. As long as he is polite in his disagreement. The truth is that he’s more polite than some Catholic bloggers were to Bl. John Paul, Pope Benedict and Pope Francis. Go read back issues of Rorate Caeli and compare.

We must learn to accept the good regardless of where it comes from. If these folks have a warm feeling toward the Pontiff, we should simply learn to say “Thank you for loving our Holy Father.” Leave it at that.

You don’t take someone’s praise and gratitude and throw it back in their face, because there is something about the person that you do not like or with which we disagree. The Holy Father spoke about this in one of his homilies last week.

Rejecting the messenger because you reject the messenger doesn’t make sense

This, if I may humbly point out, can be classified as naive optimism (or perhaps you never read the entire article).

Let me quote some parts of the article on Advocate for everyone and I am sure they will see the same

“But it’s actually during Pope Francis’s time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the “lesser of two evils.” That’s all according to Pope Francis’s authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio “listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.””

If you are telling me that this is accurate material, there are some more grave questions to ask about where Pope Francis is heading. Is he going to bless Civil Unions now, not as a Sacramental blessing of course but just as someone blesses a bike or a car perhaps. Is it your position that this is accurate?

Regardless of your thoughts or what you might want to say about it, I think what you missed is the last paragraph of the article

“Pope Francis today uttered some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people,” read a statement from the LGBT Catholic organization Equally Blessed. “In doing so, he has set a great example for Catholics everywhere.” It went on with even greater anticipation, “Catholic leaders who continue to belittle gays and lesbians can no longer claim that their inflammatory remarks represent the sentiments of the pope. Bishops who oppose the expansion of basic civil rights — such as an end to discrimination in the work place — can no longer claim that the pope approves of their discriminatory agenda. Pope Francis did not articulate a change in the church’s teaching today, but he spoke compassionately, and in doing so, he has encouraged an already lively conversation that may one day make it possible for the church to fully embrace gay and lesbian Catholics.”

This is the truth and this is the problem. We already saw this take effect when Lawmakers quoted the Pope as they voted for gay rights in a prominent case in the US. One even said “Who am I to judge?”.

If you think that all of this is very “positive”, that would be out of touch with reality.

Fulton Sheen once described how he would find the True Church as

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **hate **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who **hate **what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be"

But it seems now to be the case that

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **love **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who love what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

Something is off, and to pretend its all positive is a bit naive. As for rejecting the messenger, the messenger must be rejected when the message is abhorrent. If I may suggest, honesty is best. Admit there is a problem and lets just agree to pray about it as faithful Catholics.

 

[Sy_Noe]

What change in rhetoric?

Further down in the article a “shift in emphasis” is mentioned.

 

[Bill_Martin]

This, if I may humbly point out, can be classified as naive optimism (or perhaps you never read the entire article).

Let me quote some parts of the article on Advocate for everyone and I am sure they will see the same

“But it’s actually during Pope Francis’s time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the “lesser of two evils.” That’s all according to Pope Francis’s authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio “listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.””

If you are telling me that this is accurate material, there are some more grave questions to ask about where Pope Francis is heading. Is he going to bless Civil Unions now, not as a Sacramental blessing of course but just as someone blesses a bike or a car perhaps. Is it your position that this is accurate?

Regardless of your thoughts or what you might want to say about it, I think what you missed is the last paragraph of the article

“Pope Francis today uttered some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people,” read a statement from the LGBT Catholic organization Equally Blessed. “In doing so, he has set a great example for Catholics everywhere.” It went on with even greater anticipation, “Catholic leaders who continue to belittle gays and lesbians can no longer claim that their inflammatory remarks represent the sentiments of the pope. Bishops who oppose the expansion of basic civil rights — such as an end to discrimination in the work place — can no longer claim that the pope approves of their discriminatory agenda. Pope Francis did not articulate a change in the church’s teaching today, but he spoke compassionately, and in doing so, he has encouraged an already lively conversation that may one day make it possible for the church to fully embrace gay and lesbian Catholics.”

This is the truth and this is the problem. We already saw this take effect when Lawmakers quoted the Pope as they voted for gay rights in a prominent case in the US. One even said “Who am I to judge?”.

If you think that all of this is very “positive”, that would be out of touch with reality.

Fulton Sheen once described how he would find the True Church as

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **hate **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who **hate **what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be"

But it seems now to be the case that

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **love **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who love what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

Something is off, and to pretend its all positive is a bit naive. As for rejecting the messenger, the messenger must be rejected when the message is abhorrent. If I may suggest, honesty is best. Admit there is a problem and lets just agree to pray about it as faithful Catholics.

What’s wrong with the Church fully embracing gay Catholics? It should be doing that anyway. It doesn’t mean accepting the actions as okay; it means welcoming gays the way all sinners are welcomed. That’s what the Pope has been getting at with all these statements. For too many years we have been treating gays as some kind of subhuman species not worthy of anything but contempt. The truth is that we’re all sinners, even if we get tempted by different things.

Gays have been pushed away from the Church because of this. That’s exactly the problem that the Pope is attacking. His words are being received in such a positive way by gays because they’re much needed. The ironic thing is that he’s just reiterating what the Church has taught for a long time, but doing it accurately.

 

[JReducation]

Let’s take this in small steps.

The first step is to start with a simple question. What is the purpose of the article? Its purpose is to express affection toward the Holy Father. This affection, regardless of where it comes from should be appreciated by any Catholic, not thrown back in people’s faces.

This, if I may humbly point out, can be classified as naive optimism (or perhaps you never read the entire article).

Obviously, you don’t know who I am. You can ask several thousand people on CAF and you’ll find out that I’m neither naive nor dumb. I won’t be able to convince you of this. I won’t even try. I’ll let someone else do that.

Let me quote some parts of the article on Advocate for everyone and I am sure they will see the same

“But it’s actually during Pope Francis’s time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the “lesser of two evils.” That’s all according to Pope Francis’s authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio “listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.””

It has been said that the Holy Father made this comment. I did not hear it. I can only extrapolate what he’s talking about. The CCC clearly says that all forms of discrimination against gay people must be avoided.

India recently enacted a law making homosexual activity a crime. The Church is opposing this law. While we never condone homosexual activity, we do not criminalize it either.

This is a very good example of what can happen when discrimination is allowed to exist. People are criminalized for being sinners. But being a sinner is part of being human. We sin. We get up and we sin again. They cycle continues as we move toward God.

If you are telling me that this is accurate material, there are some more grave questions to ask about where Pope Francis is heading. Is he going to bless Civil Unions now, not as a Sacramental blessing of course but just as someone blesses a bike or a car perhaps. Is it your position that this is accurate?

None of the people who have repeated this statement ever said that then Cardinal Begoglio said anything about blessing such unions. He deliberately used the term “civil”. It becomes a matter of the state not the Church. I’m not sure why you’re bringing up blessings.

Regardless of your thoughts or what you might want to say about it, I think what you missed is the last paragraph of the article

Again, you’re making your post about me. Why?

“Pope Francis today uttered some of the most encouraging words a pontiff has ever spoken about gay and lesbian people,” read a statement from the LGBT Catholic organization Equally Blessed. “In doing so, he has set a great example for Catholics everywhere.” It went on with even greater anticipation, “Catholic leaders who continue to belittle gays and lesbians can no longer claim that their inflammatory remarks represent the sentiments of the pope. Bishops who oppose the expansion of basic civil rights — such as an end to discrimination in the work place — can no longer claim that the pope approves of their discriminatory agenda. Pope Francis did not articulate a change in the church’s teaching today, but he spoke compassionately, and in doing so, he has encouraged an already lively conversation that may one day make it possible for the church to fully embrace gay and lesbian Catholics.”

There is nothing wrong with this statement.

1. No one has the right to belittle anyone.
2. No one has the right to make inflammatory remarks about another person, regardless of whether he’s a sinner or not. If God forgives and forgets, who dare we not do the same.
3. The Church has a moral duty to protect the rights of workers as much as people in other situations.
4. The pope spoke compassionately, There is nothing wrong with that.
5. Embracing gay and lesbian Catholics is commanded in the CCC. The author probably means accepting gay and lesbian relations. This is his or her hope. There is nothing offensive in stating such a hope, just because it won’t happen.
6. The author also says that the pope did not articulate a change in the Church’s moral teaching, more than some Catholic sources have suggested. Even you’re suggesting that he’s going in that direction.

 

[JReducation]

This is the truth and this is the problem. We already saw this take effect when Lawmakers quoted the Pope as they voted for gay rights in a prominent case in the US. One even said “Who am I to judge?”.

The problem is what I mentioned in my post. Those who took those words, left out an important part of that sentence. Did you want the pope to say, “I can judge other people’s souls”? We know that he has not right to do so.

If you think that all of this is very “positive”, that would be out of touch with reality.

Again, why are you making this about me?

Fulton Sheen once described how he would find the True Church as

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **hate **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who **hate **what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be"

But it seems now to be the case that

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who **love **The Catholic Church, but there are millions who love what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

You quoted him incorrectly.

Something is off, and to pretend its all positive is a bit naive. As for rejecting the messenger, the messenger must be rejected when the message is abhorrent. If I may suggest, honesty is best. Admit there is a problem and lets just agree to pray about it as faithful Catholics.

You are making this about me again.

I didn’t know that my opinion was so threatening to you.

In fact, I don’t have much of an opinion other than the article is rather positive toward the Pontiff on his birthday and that it speaks warmly of him. We Catholics should be grateful for this. It has been a long time since this community had anything nice to say about a pope.

As to rejecting the messenger. I’m not about to tell the pope that his sermon is wrong, nor am I about to say that to the world. It is not my place to pass judgment on the pope’s sermons.

You’re free to do so, if you like. I can’t stop you. I wouldn’t encourage you to do so. But this thread is not about you anymore than it’s about me

Can we thank these folks for honoring the Holy Father on his birthday?

 

[livingwordunity]

Let me quote some parts of the article on Advocate for everyone and I am sure they will see the same

“But it’s actually during Pope Francis’s time as cardinal that his difference from Benedict and hard-liners in the church became apparent. As same-sex marriage looked on track to be legalized in Argentina, Bergoglio argued privately that the church should come out for civil unions as the “lesser of two evils.” That’s all according to Pope Francis’s authorized biographer, Sergio Rubin. Argentine gay activist Marcelo Márquez backed up the story, telling The New York Times in March that Bergoglio “listened to my views with a great deal of respect. He told me that homosexuals need to have recognized rights and that he supported civil unions, but not same-sex marriage.””

If you are telling me that this is accurate material, there are some more grave questions to ask about where Pope Francis is heading. Is he going to bless Civil Unions now, not as a Sacramental blessing of course but just as someone blesses a bike or a car perhaps. Is it your position that this is accurate?

Since I’m up too late and need to go to bed soon, I don’t have time to read and respond to the other parts of your post. The other parts of your post might be good. But I disagree with you here on this point. If the Pope said when he was a cardinal that civil unions were the lesser of two evils between that and redefining marriage to include so-called same-sex “marriage” then he was correct and was in accordance with the teachings of the Church. Calling homosexual civil unions “the lesser of two evils” isn’t the same as calling it good especially in today’s context where marriage is being redefined in a lot of places. If it were a choice between homosexual “civil unions” or true marriage then that would be totally different than the battle we are now faced with where the “gay” lobby has moved past wanting “civil unions” and now is obsessed with attacking marriage directly. Please see the following:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons (June 3, 2003)

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.