No Problem with Civil Unions for Catholic Church: English Bishop

[JimG]

1. No, civil unions are not marriages. Those who want to allow such unions don’t necessarily promote marriage for homosexual couples.
2. How would the children know about it unless that couple flaunted their cohabitation? They made waves, they were looking to be fired.
3. You can’t tell looking at, for example, me if I’m homo- or heterosexual unless I advertise it. Nor would you know other people’s sexual orientation unless they were blatant about it.

Heck, not all marriages are marriages. The point is, not all living arrangements are equally beneficial to society; not all living arrangements should receive societal and legal approval along with special benefits. Why give societal benefits to arrangements that work against societal stability?

I think children know whose parents are divorced, whose are not, and who has two mommies or two daddies. Kids know a lot about the living arrangements of other kids’ parents, whether the parents keep a low profile or not.

Adultery and fornication are also detrimental. Not so many years ago, they were also illegal. Now they’re not illegal; they are also more prevalent, and society suffers.

We might also give equal benefits two adults who wish to have civil unions with 14 year olds. There are those who might push for such laws in the future in the interest of equality. Would it be in the best interest of our society? I think not.

 

[canadianguy1143]

True enough. The Church is against divorce even though the State recognizes it. The Church is against artificial birth control even though the State allows it. The Church opposes heterosexual couples living together before marriage even though the State says nothing about it…

Not everyone in the U.S.A. is a Catholic and the State is not doing things with only the Catholics in mind. That’s why.

The topic of this thread is that a Bishop said something contrary to the teachings of the faith. He should not have done it.

 

[rossum]

Let those couples do their business at City Hall at the Registrar’s Office.

That is precisely the case with UK Civil Partnerships, they may only be performed at Registry Offices, not in churches. That is one of the few differences between a Civil Partnership and a marriage.

rossum

 

[mickey_doolan]

How can the Bishop live with that? He will be answerable to God one day. God will make it clear to him by saying he has gone against his word and truth.

 

[wisdomseeker]

1. No, civil unions are not marriages. Those who want to allow such unions don’t necessarily promote marriage for homosexual couples.
2. How would the children know about it unless that couple flaunted their cohabitation? They made waves, they were looking to be fired.
3. You can’t tell looking at, for example, me if I’m homo- or heterosexual unless I advertise it. Nor would you know other people’s sexual orientation unless they were blatant about it.

Civil unions are marriage. as a matter of fact where i come from and so is in this country many people decides to get marriage by a court judge or whomever. it is considered a marriage although is not recognized by the Church as Sacred Sacrament. and that is why is so dangerous. dont kiddy yourself. that is how it starts. little by little they gain ground. wasnt elton john marriage in teh Church? do you see what i mean?

No, they dont have to advertise for people to know. we will know when they live next to you and your children see them living together. you will know when they come to pick up the children in school and other children sees. beside they dont intend to stay out of the public eye, they have a much bigger agenda. they want to be recognized as couples just like everyone else.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

they want to be recognized as couples just like everyone else.

They usually are, already. Just as are heterosexual married couples and heterosexual couples just living together. Who gets worked up about one set of neighbors being Mr. and Mrs. and the other set being Mr. and Ms.?

It’s the legal benefits of a Civil Union or Partnership that they want.

 

[wisdomseeker]

They usually are, already. Just as are heterosexual married couples and heterosexual couples just living together. Who gets worked up about one set of neighbors being Mr. and Mrs. and the other set being Mr. and Ms.?

It’s the legal benefits of a Civil Union or Partnership that they want.

and if the CC does this, isnt she doing just the same as the world is doing it. if the Church provide benefit to them, isnt she contributing to something that she is supposed to be speaking against? just trying to understand the motive behind all this.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I don’t want the Church to bless those unions. I think it should be a wholly civil matter, just like divorce, handled in civil courts and entered into civilly.

 

[JReducation]

I don’t want the Church to bless those unions. I think it should be a wholly civil matter, just like divorce, handled in civil courts and entered into civilly.

The bishop didn’t say that he is going to bless these unions. He said that he doesn’t see a problem with the civil union. The concern here is that his words can be taken out of context to mean that the Church equates them to a marriage. I’m just wondering why he said this. It may have been more prudent to leave it alone.

It’s the same rule that applies to civil marriages. The Church does not go around denouncing civil marriages. She simply makes no statement about them, but continues to teach the necessity of the Sacrament of Marriage as her way of counteracting the civil marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[wisdomseeker]

The bishop didn’t say that he is going to bless these unions. He said that he doesn’t see a problem with the civil union. The concern here is that his words can be taken out of context to mean that the Church equates them to a marriage. I’m just wondering why he said this. It may have been more prudent to leave it alone.

It’s the same rule that applies to civil marriages. The Church does not go around denouncing civil marriages. She simply makes no statement about them, but continues to teach the necessity of the Sacrament of Marriage as her way of counteracting the civil marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

He said, he did not have a problem with it? is this right? you mean that he just goes along with? he did not speak against such a thing? i cant imagine the Apostles saying we dont a have a problem with same sex union if the state doesnt.

 

[canadianguy1143]

The bishop didn’t say that he is going to bless these unions. He said that he doesn’t see a problem with the civil union. The concern here is that his words can be taken out of context to mean that the Church equates them to a marriage. I’m just wondering why he said this. It may have been more prudent to leave it alone.

It’s the same rule that applies to civil marriages. The Church does not go around denouncing civil marriages. She simply makes no statement about them, but continues to teach the necessity of the Sacrament of Marriage as her way of counteracting the civil marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Br. JR,

The concern that I have is that as Catholics we have been told over the past few years that a Catholic can’t support Civil Unions for Gay couples as a matter of faith and morals.

Now all of a second we have a Bishop saying something completely otherwise and this has caused some scandal.

Can you definitely state whether a Catholic in good conscience can support Civil Unions for Gay Couples?

 

[crazzeto]

Yes, it can be, just as heterosexuals, both single and married, can be depraved. But, there are also the homosexuals who don’t bother anyone, don’t carry on in public, and live quiet lives. There’s a restaurant here in Little Rock that is owned and operated by two middle-aged lesbians. They don’t publicize their status and I’d have no problem if they moved in next door to me. There’s also a fellow at work who is “gay.” He once brought his companion to a company picnic. You’d never know it; few of them are “flaming.”

I used to beleive that, until I encountered it… I’m sorry no hetro-club is that depraived except for certain outliers (strip club for instance?). This isn’t a strip club, there isn’t supposed to be anything extrodenary about it. This is (supposed) to be that kind of club which on TV would be characterized as regular old folks just having gold old conversation.

Except that’s not what it really was, truely it was completely depraved. It’s hard to remain of the opinion that gay people are no more or less depraved than hetro people in general. Regardless, the church is right and there’s no way around that really.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Yes, it can be, just as heterosexuals, both single and married, can be depraved. But, there are also the homosexuals who don’t bother anyone, don’t carry on in public, and live quiet lives. There’s a restaurant here in Little Rock that is owned and operated by two middle-aged lesbians. They don’t publicize their status and I’d have no problem if they moved in next door to me. There’s also a fellow at work who is “gay.” He once brought his companion to a company picnic. You’d never know it; few of them are “flaming.”

Is the fact that their outward behavior lacks flamboyance a reason for not caring about what happens to their immortal souls?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Is the fact that their outward behavior lacks flamboyance a reason for not caring about what happens to their immortal souls?

How would opposing civil unions show caring for their souls? Or opposing divorce or contraception show caring in regards to heterosexuals involved in any of those?

 

[JReducation]

He said, he did not have a problem with it? is this right? you mean that he just goes along with? he did not speak against such a thing? i cant imagine the Apostles saying we dont a have a problem with same sex union if the state doesnt.

According to the article posted in # 1, that’s what he says. It quotes him as saying that the state is not recognizing same-sex unions as marriages, but as some legal arrangement. But you had better read the article yourself. I’m paraphrasing now.

There is another thing here too. None of us really know how accurate the report is. Even LifeSite has been known to edit reports according to their agenda. From what I gather, after reading the article from LifeSite, they are quoting from another article, not from an interview that they did. This has the potential to turn into the Game of Telephone.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Br. JR,

The concern that I have is that as Catholics we have been told over the past few years that a Catholic can’t support Civil Unions for Gay couples as a matter of faith and morals.

Now all of a second we have a Bishop saying something completely otherwise and this has caused some scandal.

Can you definitely state whether a Catholic in good conscience can support Civil Unions for Gay Couples?

As far as I understand the rule, same sex-unions cannot be supported under any circumstances, because they involve sexual activity between the partners. When the term “same-sex union” is used, it usually does not mean business partnerships between two people of the same sex or purely platonic financial arrangements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

How would opposing civil unions show caring for their souls? Or opposing divorce or contraception show caring in regards to heterosexuals involved in any of those?

I believe the issue in all the examples that you have given is that the Church cannot support any rule or law that allows an evil.

That being said, divorce is not in the same league. There are times when a legal divorce is necessary to protect the rights and safety of individuals. The Church does not oppose those. The position of the Church on divorce is that it is a legal mechanism to protect people. But it does not have the power to unbind the marriage covenant. Even the Church does not have that power. If the marriage covenant is valid, both parties remain married to each other, even if they are divorced. There is nothing that the Church or the civil state can do to terminate the covenant.

As to contraception, abortion, same-sex unions, those are evils. The Church has an ogligation to save souls. It also has an obligation and right to block the legalization of evil.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That being said, divorce is not in the same league. There are times when a legal divorce is necessary to protect the rights and safety of individuals. The Church does not oppose those.

To the Church, a divorce is solely a mechanism to, as you say, protect rights and safety. BUT, to the State, it dissolves a marriage. The State does not see it solely as a way to protect people.

The Church doesn’t recognize that the State can dissolve a marriage, so what the State and the Church do can be opposite. The same with a civil partnership or union. To the State, it is a mechanism to protect rights and the safety of individuals, even as the Church will never recognize it. Let the State do what it will, and let the Church voice its opposition and forbid it to Catholics, as is its right…

Same with artificial contraception. It’s wholly legal and morally neutral to the State. The Church opposes it, which is its perogative, and can forbid it to Catholics, but others go their own way.

[The Church] also has an obligation and right to block the legalization of evil (abortion).

I agree that it is a moral issue for Catholics, but legislating morality “out of house” hasn’t had much success in the United States historically.

 

[JReducation]

To the Church, a divorce is solely a mechanism to, as you say, protect rights and safety. BUT, to the State, it dissolves a marriage. The State does not see it solely as a way to protect people.

The Church doesn’t recognize that the State can dissolve a marriage, so what the State and the Church do can be opposite. The same with a civil partnership or union. To the State, it is a mechanism to protect rights and the safety of individuals, even as the Church will never recognize it. Let the State do what it will, and let the Church voice its opposition and forbid it to Catholics, as is its right…

Same with artificial contraception. It’s wholly legal and morally neutral to the State. The Church opposes it, which is its perogative, and can forbid it to Catholics, but others go their own way.

I agree that it is a moral issue for Catholics, but legislating morality “out of house” hasn’t had much success in the United States historically.

Rich,

We have to be very careful here, because we run several risks. If we assume that the Church’s authority to legislae morality is only binding on Catholics, then we become the catholic church, with lower case “c”. The Church’s place in the world is for all people, not just those who physically belong to her. This takes us back to the dogma of no salvation outside the Church.

The Church has the duty to save souls, inside her physical body and outside. She also has that power given to her by Christ. This is undeniable. Therefore, even those who are not Catholic are morally bound by the moral teachings revealed through the Church. That’s how salvation reaches them. Christ uses these means to save. But if we assume that the Church’s moral revelation is only for those within her physical boundaries, then we are returning to the Old Law that the Apostles told us was abrogated. Just as salvation was not just for the Jews, it is not just for Catholics either.

When you have to codes of law, side by side, one is revealed by God and the other is created by man, and they are in conflict, you have the mandate from Christ himself to preach the Gospel. This means that you have a mandate to censure the man-made law that is in conflict with the revealed law, because that man-made law stands between man and salvation.

The other risk that you run, if you do not insist in showing how the man-made law is a lie, you run the risk of sinning against justice. In justice, every human being is entitled to be told the truth. In justice, God does have a place in the public sector. The state does not have the right to deny him this.

It is interesting that in the Council documents the Church holds a special place of honor for Islam. This is based on the Church’s respect for the fact that Islam, aside from its many doctrinal errors, does have one redeeming quality. It does not separate between the life of faith and life in society. The Muslims have understood this part of revelation very well. God cannot be hidden or exist in a parallel society.

This belief is not orginal to Islam. It was handed down to man through Abraham, to Israel, through Jesus to the Apostles. In reality the Muslim insistance that God’s law must regulate civil law is really very Catholic. It is a sign of the Church’s remote presence among them, even though they do not realize it. It is through fidelity to the belief in God’s right to be present in society that Jesus will save these people.

The principle is not just for Muslims. It is a principle for all men. God does have a place in the public arena and the public arena must never ignore revelation or revealed truth. It is the mission and moral duty of every Catholic to remind the public arena of this reality and this obligation. You cannot restrict moral truth to the members of certain faiths and let everyone else go their way. To do so, you are denying God his rightful place in society and you are allowing society to believe that there can be two codes of conduct that are mutually exclusive. To allow society to believe this is to allow a lie.

We must be tolerant with people. This means that they deserve our respect and our love. But we need not be silent in those areas where we can make a difference. As citizens, Catholics can make a difference. Catholics can lobby for legislation that is consistent with revealed truth. This is not a call for Catholics to build faggots and burn the witches at the stake. God forbid. That is barbarism or terrorism at is finest. We do not attack people, but we challenge immoral legislation and push for reform.

You also mentioned that this has not done well in the USA and I agree with you. This is what some popes have called the American Heresy. I don’t believe it’s just American, but I guess that it can be called that, because we were the first nation to implement the notion that freedom of religion meant freedom from moral laws. But this thinking is wrong. The moral law has been revealed through the human conscience and through natural law. Man is bound to it. American Catholics have a moral duty to impress moral revelation upon the its elected officials and upon their fellow citizens. What we cannot do is proselytize. That is forbidden by the Church. But we are commanded to evangelize, which is different.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[nsper7]

As far as I understand the rule, same sex-unions cannot be supported under any circumstances, because they involve sexual activity between the partners. When the term “same-sex union” is used, it usually does not mean business partnerships between two people of the same sex or purely platonic financial arrangements.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

What about the term ‘domestic partnership’? I ask because, partially, I am running for City Commission where I live and that issue may come up. Basically, the LGBT lobby as it were is sending me questionnaires (and I assume also to my fellow candidates) in the mail trying to get me to address these issues. I have been advised by my Director of Communications basically just not to respond since the group (although it calls itself the Human Rights Council) has an agenda and there is no reason for me to step into the conflict at the present time (my campaign is concentrating on issues of fiscal responsibility). My state already bans SSM and ‘civil unions’.