Is my position on this acceptable for a Roman Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joko2599
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ah…this is the one you want, sheilathebard, which includes the Church pronouncing how certain passages from Sacred Scripture are to be interpreted by the faithful. (See footnote 18, below): vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

PERSONA HUMANA

DECLARATION ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS CONCERNING SEXUAL ETHICS

Excerpts:
“There are many people today who, being confronted with widespread opinions opposed to the teaching which they received from the Church, have come to wonder what must still hold as true…The Church cannot remain indifferent to this confusion of minds and relaxation of morals. It is a question, in fact, of a matter which is of the utmost importance both for the personal lives of Christians and for the social life of our time…since the erroneous opinions and resulting deviations are continuing to spread everywhere, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by virtue of its function in the universal Church[2] and by a mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, has judged it necessary to publish the present Declaration.”

and

"At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."

Where [18] is:
18. Rom 1:24-27 “That is why God left them to their filthy enjoyments and the practices with which they dishonor their own bodies since they have given up Divine truth for a lie and have worshipped and served creatures instead of the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen! That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions; why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion” See also what St. Paul says of “masculorum concubitores” in I Cor 6:10; I Tim 1:10.

The document was promulgated with this note:
*At the audience granted on November 7, 1975, to the undersigned Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Sovereign Pontiff by Divine Providence Pope Paul VI approved this Declaration “On certain questions concerning sexual ethics,” confirmed it and ordered its publication.

Given in Rome, at the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on December 29th,1975.

Franjo Cardinal Seper
Prefect

Most Rev. Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
Secretary*
 
BTW, in Persona Humana, there is this line:

“…the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by virtue of its function in the universal Church[2] and by a mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, has judged it necessary to publish the present Declaration…”

The footnote refers to the document describing the functions of the congregations in the Roman Curia. According to Article 48 of the Apostolic Constitution on the Roman Curia, Pastor Bonus, promulgated by the Holy Father John Paul II on June 28, 1988, “the duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world: for this reason everything which in any way touches such matter falls within its competence.”

IOW, Catholics do not have to sit around and debate what it is that the Church teaches. It is the duty of that congregation of the Roman Curia to articulate those things. If you wonder what the Church teaches, rather than what the liberals or the conservatives say, you only have to look to what that Congregation has declared to be in the deposit of faith.
 
But two heterosexuals getting married in a civil union is also not considered a valid marriage by the church as well, right?
And that couple would be “fornicating” as well?

And yet, Catholics support the right for heterosexuals to get married in a civil union, don’t they?
Your example is irrelevant. It is a logical fallacy to find one place where Catholics do not believe that Church law ought to be translated into civil law and to conclude from that one instance that no example of moral law is required by justice to be reflected in secular law.

The violation of moral law by heterosexuals who engage in natural acts outside of marriage and that of homosexuals who attempt to redefine disordered acts as the equivalent of natural ones are two quite different things.

There is only one way that the Church would tolerate civil unions other than marriage, and that is if the basis for the civil union in question is quite clearly divorced from immoral sexual acts between the contracting parties. For instance, the Church does not oppose laws that would allow adult roommates to care for each other or to give each other some of the privileges enjoyed by next-of-kin, provided that the relationship is one of mutual care. There can be no protection or encouragement of disordered forms of sexual consort, let alone falsely equating such relationships with marriage.
 
But two heterosexuals getting married in a civil union is also not considered a valid marriage by the church as well, right?
And that couple would be “fornicating” as well?

And yet, Catholics support the right for heterosexuals to get married in a civil union, don’t they?

.
Thats not quite correct. As long as they have not been married previously and are not bound to the rules of the Church (ie have not been baptized as a Catholic ) then they can marry validly in a civil ceremoney seeing as it is not the priest who bestows marriage on the couple, but the couple themselves who bestow it on each other.
 
Also, for the people looking for an explicit teaching, this is the best that I know of at present

From CCC:
2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.
2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."85 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.86
2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.
**Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals **and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.
I believe the part that is especially pertinent is that this speaks only of positively establishing a law promotes immorality. So it is not requiring Catholics to outlaw every immoral action, but it is telling them that it is wrong to pass laws which will promote immoral behaviour. Does that fit what you are looking for?
 
Stewstew03, if someone steals from me or lies to me, I have the right to expect a redress of grievances, and the government may validly do that for me. This isn’t Church teaching here, but simply practical. The reason I have a government is to protect me from people stronger than I am who might harm me.

But for Jane to marry Sally, in Jefferson’s words, “neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” It has nothing to do with me, so I don’t require the government to stop it.

You may say it will destroy society’s view of marriage. But if you do, I might ask how old you are, because I was not even alive at a time when American society had a remotely healthy understanding of what marriage is. If you were, maybe you haven’t noticed the change, but I can’t see what same-sex marriage could do that divorce has not already done.
Your view of why governments exist is incomplete. Consider the following
from (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus_en.html, boldface mine)

"The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate.93 Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or for ideological ends.

Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the “subjectivity” of society through the creation of structures of participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends.** It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.**

Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which purports to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on others their own concept of what is true and good. Christian truth is not of this kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church’s method is always that of respect for freedom.94

**But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth. In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and hidden. **The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly offering to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in accordance with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying heed to every fragment of truth which he encounters in the life experience and in the culture of individuals and of nations, he will not fail to affirm in dialogue with others all that his faith and the correct use of reason have enabled him to understand.95"

John Paul II, Centesimus Annus, 1991. The whole encyclical is well worth reading…
 
Look whichever way you want to slice it, gay marriage is disgusting, end of story, and im tired of the whole gay movement to be honest, they already get what they want, but they have to keep pushing it further and further, they have almost made it fashionable to be gay these days, and while these people moan about their civil rights they never seem to think about the children, thank God I live in Australia where they have held out against this rubbish, even though our PM is a shocking leader and will soon be history, at least she wont budge on this one, and our new Prime Minister coming in that will be elected in september is Tony Abbott, and hes a proud Catholic! so it happening down here thats for sure, The US, UK, New Zealand and all the other countries that have allowed this to happen, shame on them…
 
Look whichever way you want to slice it, gay marriage is disgusting, end of story, and im tired of the whole gay movement to be honest, they already get what they want, but they have to keep pushing it further and further, they have almost made it fashionable to be gay these days, and while these people moan about their civil rights they never seem to think about the children, thank God I live in Australia where they have held out against this rubbish, even though our PM is a shocking leader and will soon be history, at least she wont budge on this one, and our new Prime Minister coming in that will be elected in september is Tony Abbott, and hes a proud Catholic! so it happening down here thats for sure, The US, UK, New Zealand and all the other countries that have allowed this to happen, shame on them…
This is from Wikapedia, so take it for what it is worth:
As of May 2013, twelve countries (Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Mexico and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry. Uruguay and New Zealand have both enacted laws to legalize same-sex marriage which will come into force in August 2013. French legislation to establish same-sex marriage has passed both houses of Parliament, but still faces procedural hurdles. Bills allowing legal recognition of same-sex marriage have been proposed, are pending, or have passed at least one legislative house in Andorra, Colombia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Nepal, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom, as well as in the legislatures of several sub-national jurisdictions (in Scotland as well as parts of Australia, Mexico, and the United States).
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

As nearly as I can tell, the first true legal recognition of same sex marriage in the history of the world was in 2001. Before that, same-sex unions that were tolerated or pretended in previous civilizations did not ever enjoy the legal status of heterosexual marriage.
 
My source is still the Syllabus of errors.
My source was a direct declaration articulating the Church’s unchanging position, titled Persona Humana (“On Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics”) and promulgated through the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith at the direct behest of the Pope, combined with a website posted by the USCCB that has a very rich reading list on the subject. I also posted statements by the Church indicating that the articulation of what Catholics are to hold to be true is the purview of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (rather than, as some Catholics imply, the discernment of individual Catholics concerning how previous Church teachings apply to modern situations).

I have not seen sheilathebard comment since those sources were posted, however.
 
And yet, Catholics support the right for heterosexuals to get married in a civil union, don’t they?
No. Catholics cannot support any form of civil unions. If you’re referring to civil marriage, then yes Catholics can support that, since civil marriages between non-Catholics are (presumptively) valid.
 
No. Catholics cannot support any form of civil unions. If you’re referring to civil marriage, then yes Catholics can support that, since civil marriages between non-Catholics are (presumptively) valid.
I assume you are not claiming that the Church is against the state having a special legal set-up for non-romantically involved friends/siblings who wish to live together platonically for the company and support such an arrangement would provide? Because the Church has never condenmed this kind of arrangement. In other words, if someone, by a civil union, means a platonic arrangement, then it is not something the Church is against. What the Church is against, as I quoted earlier, is the establishing of laws that promote immorality. Two siblings or platonic friends living together and sharing their lives in a non-romantic way is in no way immoral. Therefore it is not scandalous for the govt to promote such an arrangement, even if they were to happen to call such an arrangement a civil union. The problem is if this arrangement is being set up for the sake of romantically involved people who do not wish to/cannot be married.
 
I assume you are not claiming that the Church is against the state having a special legal set-up for non-romantically involved friends/siblings who wish to live together platonically for the company and support such an arrangement would provide? Because the Church has never condenmed this kind of arrangement. In other words, if someone, by a civil union, means a platonic arrangement, then it is not something the Church is against. What the Church is against, as I quoted earlier, is the establishing of laws that promote immorality. Two siblings or platonic friends living together and sharing their lives in a non-romantic way is in no way immoral. Therefore it is not scandalous for the govt to promote such an arrangement, even if they were to happen to call such an arrangement a civil union. The problem is if this arrangement is being set up for the sake of romantically involved people who do not wish to/cannot be married.
If two siblings or platonic friends wish to live together for asexual purposes then they do not need a special legal arrangement, they can use existing laws regarding power of attorney and the like.
 
If two siblings or platonic friends wish to live together for asexual purposes then they do not need a special legal arrangement, they can use existing laws regarding power of attorney and the like.
Yes, they can. I’m just making the clarification that if the govt were to make a special legal arrangement for it to make this process easier then there would be nothing immoral with the govt doing so, even if they happened to name it “civil union” so long as it was clear that this arrangement is for non-romantically involved people.
 
Yes, they can. I’m just making the clarification that if the govt were to make a special legal arrangement for it to make this process easier then there would be nothing immoral with the govt doing so, even if they happened to name it “civil union” so long as it was clear that this arrangement is for non-romantically involved people.
What is the purpose of that except to create substitute systems for marriage?
 
What is the purpose of that except to create substitute systems for marriage?
Exactly what I suggested, to help non-romantically involved people, such as siblings, to share their lives together. Yes, right now most people think of a civil union as a substitute for marriage, but my point was that doesn’t have to be the way people look at it. 🤷
 
Exactly what I suggested, to help non-romantically involved people, such as siblings, to share their lives together. Yes, right now most people think of a civil union as a substitute for marriage, but my point was that doesn’t have to be the way people look at it. 🤷
A legal arrangement by which two people can give each other financial rights similar to marriage, sounds like a marriage substitute to me. 🤷
 
A legal arrangement by which two people can give each other financial rights similar to marriage, sounds like a marriage substitute to me. 🤷
Not if there is no right of consortium, any expectation of some kind of consummation, and the recognition that if there are children, the other person is not presumed a parent…in other words, if the arrangement excludes recognition of a marital or quasi-marital sexual relationship. The rights would be more like those for members of a religious community, something that widows could use to take care of each other even though they’re not sexual partners.
 
So you’re only supporting the idea of allowing two people to create not-for-profit corporations?
If they want to turn a profit, I have no problem with that. I just don’t want to live in a world where the only place you can say male and female make a real difference is in extension cords.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top