No Problem with Civil Unions for Catholic Church: English Bishop

[JReducation]

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’.

Domestic partnership to these groups does not mean housemates. It means the same as same-sex unions. I would treat it as such. If that what it means to them, then their meaning is morally unacceptable. You PR person is right. Don’t get sucked into their agenda. Get elected first and then promote morality. But don’t run on a decpetive ticket either. Don’t let people believe that you support what you know is immoral. If you can keep quiet and focus on fiscal responsibility, then do so. If you’re back is to the wall, then you have to speak the truth.

Please don’t take my advice. I’m not a politician or a moral theologian. I’m a mystical theologian. Seek the counsel of someone who is trained in moral theology. Your best bet is one of your bishops. Most bishops are moral thoelogians. Parish priests are not moral theologians. In fact, most are not theologians. They are generalists. Though, you may have one in your parish who is very good in this field. If you do, by all means talk to him. But I would certainly do my best to find out who is knowledgeable in this area. The bishop is also a good source, because if you are elected to public office, you want to work with the Church, not in conflict with her. The Mayor of Boston got burned for this. He learned his lesson. Now he has a monthly meeting with the Cardinal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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 the benefit to their souls?

Again—have they no souls worth saving simply because they are homosexual?

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

I have to agree with you. things get distorted along the way.

blessings.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

And the benefit to their souls?

Again—have they no souls worth saving simply because they are homosexual?

JR included artificial contraception as one of those evils to be opposed. So, I’d ask you, Sailor, “have people who use contraceptives no souls worth saving because they use them?” And, if you you say, “They do,” then I’d ask what the Church is doing on a big scale basis to oppose the use of contraceptives by non-Catholics.

I leave those people alone as I do homosexuals.

 

[JReducation]

JR included artificial contraception as one of those evils to be opposed. So, I’d ask you, Sailor, “have people who use contraceptives no souls worth saving because they use them?” And, if you you say, “They do,” then I’d ask what the Church is doing on a big scale basis to oppose the use of contraceptives by non-Catholics.

I leave those people alone as I do homosexuals.

I believe that what is happening is that there are so many immoral rules and practices coming at us from all directions that you don’t have all the manpower you need to face them. The Church has had to consolidate its focus.

If you consoladate your focus on marriage and family and you promote those and defend those, you are covering divorce and remarriage, contraception, same-sex marriage and even abortion to some extent. The problem has been that the aboriton and same-sex lobby have pulled those two topics out of the context of family life and have given them a life of their own. When that happens, the Church has no option but to face them head on.

Unfortunately, those who are pushing the abortion and same-sex agendas don’t see these as issues that affect the family. Therefore, when you try to talk about the family with them, they don’t understand. I believe the problem is that they have redefined family just as they have redefined reproductive healthcare. Instead of defending the dignity of the family, we Catholics are faced with defending the definition of the family and the definition of reproductive healthcare.

Does this make sense?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Unfortunately, those who are pushing the abortion and same-sex agendas don’t see these as issues that affect the family. Therefore, when you try to talk about the family with them, they don’t understand. I believe the problem is that they have redefined family just as they have redefined reproductive healthcare. Does this make sense?

I agree about abortion, but the two groups don’t coincide. Yes, I agree with you that same-sex people want to redefine family, but to make it more inclusive and not so exclusive.

Many of them want to be recognized as a family. I am personally acquainted with a “gay” man who is raising his one child, a son, after his wife divorced him. I know that he wants to have his long-time “partner” considered to be family, not just by him, but by the world at large. He’s a bit different in that he “dates” his partner, rather than lives with him, but the desire to be just another family is still there.

It doesn’t help the Church vis-a-vis family matters when so many Catholics opt for divorce or for living with another. I’d rather see the Church focus on shepherding its own before taking more on.

 

[nsper7]

It doesn’t help the Church vis-a-vis family matters when so many Catholics opt for divorce or for living with another. I’d rather see the Church focus on shepherding its own before taking more on.

This I think is a problem that occurs when the State legislates marriage. It creates these sorts of confusions (divorced in the legal sense of the word, but still married in the eyes of the Church…obviously, the Church’s definition is more important in the eyes of God, but the State, many would say, should leave an out when there are irreconcilable differences, especially if the safety of anyone is at stake).

Would the Church be okay with the proverbial ‘privatization of marriage’? In other words, the State does not use words like “marriage”, “union”, etc. but instead is the arbitrator of contracts. Anyone can make a contract with anyone else regarding the mutual use of resources (i.e. groups of people who are forming a commune or collective might make this sort of contract), visitation rights (a single person, heck even a ‘married’ person , may prefer a friend to be able to visit them), inheritance rights (this is the problem with the Death Tax and our society’s litigiousness…why can’t I leave my stuff to whomever I please, whether that is someone I am married to in the eyes of the Church, a good friend, etc.?).

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree. Why does the Church in the U.S. allow the clergy to represent the State by signing the marriage certificate? In France, unless I’m mistaken, a Catholic or Protestant couple go to City Hall for a pro-forma civil marriage and to church for their legitimate God-blessed marriage. The Church is not Sarkozy’s agent. The non-religious just rely on the civil marriage.

 

[JReducation]

I agree. Why does the Church in the U.S. allow the clergy to represent the State by signing the marriage certificate? In France, unless I’m mistaken, a Catholic or Protestant couple go to City Hall for a pro-forma civil marriage and to church for their legitimate God-blessed marriage. The Church is not Sarkozy’s agent. The non-religious just rely on the civil marriage.

It is not the Church who represents the State. The Constitution grants every citizen the right to the free exercise of religion. When this ammendment was written one of the concerns by the citizens of the new republic was their exercise of religion. The Constitution never made provisions for the state to perform marriages. This was always left to the individual religious communities. That’s how clergy and othe religious ministers continued to witness marriages and the state accepts them as legally binding. It’s not a case of religious ministers representing the state. It is a case of the state not having had the original authority to witness marriages. This was instituted much later by the state constitutions. By that time the practice of religious ministers witnessing marriages had been in effect as it had been brought over from Europe.

What happened in France and other countries was that the state passed anti-clerical laws that took away the authority of the churches to witness marriages. That’s how they got into the system of having two weddings, a civil and a religious wedding.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

It’s not a case of religious ministers representing the state. It is a case of the state not having had the original authority to witness marriages. This was instituted much later by the state constitutions. By that time the practice of religious ministers witnessing marriages had been in effect as it had been brought over from Europe.

Sure, but, today, thanks to those state constitutions, clergymen are de facto, if not de jure, state agents as witnesses.

What happened in France and other countries was that the state passed anti-clerical laws that took away the authority of the churches to witness marriages. That’s how they got into the system of having two weddings, a civil and a religious wedding.

So, even anti-clericalism does something right once in a great while.

 

[JReducation]

Sure, but, today, thanks to those state constitutions, clergymen are de facto, if not de jure, state agents as witnesses.

So, even anti-clericalism does something right once in a great while.

I don’t see what is right about it? The civil wedding is useless as it does not confect the sacrament. All it does is bind two parties in a civil contract. You may as well do that all in one ritual. Let’s not forget that many weddings performed by ministers of other faiths for the members of their congregation are the same sacrament of marriage as that of the Catholic Church, whereas a civil ceremony is not a sacrament, because it is not rooted in any kind of faith. All that a civil wedding does is give you legal rights. In most states you do not have to go before a judge for this. You go to the clerk of the court who signs your license and it’s a done deal. You’re legally married. What is it that the state is contributing that the clergy, rabbis, and other religious leaders are not already doing?

My second question is why would a person of faith, esepcially a Catholic, Orthodox, Muslim or Jew, who has an ancient tradition of religious marriages that had been binding and recognized by civil society now want to give that authority over to the state? Why would we want to diminish the authority of our clergy?

In effect, this is what the anti-clerical laws of France and other countries sought to do. They wanted to reduce the influence of the clergy and the Church in civil society, because they saw religion as a nusance.

God has a place in the public sector. The public sector does not have the right to deny God his place, nor does it have the right to penalize the citizen for commiting a sin. But it does have an obligation to include God and his laws in public legislation. And it has the obligation to recognize truth.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The public sector does not have the right to deny God his place, nor does it have the right to penalize the citizen for commiting a sin. But it does have an obligation to include God and his laws in public legislation. And it has the obligation to recognize truth.

The public sector may indeed deny God his place in America. In the 1st Commandment, God tells us that we shall not have any other gods before him. But, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion. An atheist or a Buddhist or anamist, etc. cannot be forced to recognize God or His existence, they may freely deny Him, by law.

I don’t think you intended to actually say that the state has no right to penalize the citizen for committing a sin. It does that all the time when it punishes thieves, murderers, perjurers, wife-beaters, etc.

While truth is absolute to the religious believer, it is relative to the State. Litigation goes on endlessly in civil courts to determine the truth of a particular case and criminal procedures are basically contests between the prosecutor and defense attorneys, and not venues where truth is determined.

 

[JReducation]

The public sector may indeed deny God his place in America.

That is a human assumption, not divine revelation.

In the 1st Commandment, God tells us that we shall not have any other gods before him.

Therefore, the state cannot assume authority that belongs only to God.

But, the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion.

The Constitution of the USA says that the “state shall not establish an official religion.” It does not say that God has no place in the public sector. In fact, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegience invoke God. The last time I checked we pledged allegience to “one nation under God.”

An atheist or a Buddhist or anamist, etc. cannot be forced to recognize God or His existence, they may freely deny Him, by law.

They may freely deny him because religious freedom is a basic human right. Therefore, the state may not punish him for doing so. But that does not mean that the legislator has the right to ignore revealed law. It simply means that the legislator does not have the right to limit the exercise of religious liberty.

I don’t think you intended to actually say that the state has no right to penalize the citizen for committing a sin. It does that all the time when it punishes thieves, murderers, perjurers, wife-beaters, etc.

Yes I did. That is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Check the Decree on Religious Freedom by Vatican II. There are sins and there are sins that are also crimes, then there are crimes that are not sins. The state has a God-given right to penalize crimes that endanger the rights and safety of the innocent. If a sin does not threaten the rights of the innocent, the state has no right to penalize, birth control is one of those sins.

While truth is absolute to the religious believer, it is relative to the State.

Truth cannot be both absolute and relative. Listen to what Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul have taught. “Truth cannot contradict itself.” It is truth or it’s not truth. The fact that in the secular world people want to treat truth as something relative, does not meant that it is. It is our duty, as Catholics, to teach the world that there is no such thing as relative truth. It is also our duty as Catholics to lobby for a change to those regulations that hold truth to be relative.

Litigation goes on endlessly in civil courts to determine the truth of a particular case and criminal procedures are basically contests between the prosecutor and defense attorneys, and not venues where truth is determined.

Litigation is not about determining truth, but about proving that someone is guilty or not guilty. Observe that there is no such thing as a verdic of innocent. You are either guilty or not guilty, but you are never innocent. Not guilty means that there was insufficient evidence to prove that you are guilty. It does not mean that you are innocent. Therefore, litigation is a debate about alleged facts, not about truth. That’s why the outcome of litigation is not a basis for moral law. Look at Roe v. Wade. There was insufficient material to prove that abortion was unconstitutional. The issue was not about truth. It won because the opposition could not convince the court that abortion was unconstitutional. The weakness in the ruling was that the court went with the negative rather than with truth. Since the opposition could not sustain its case it lost. But the case was not won on the merits of truth. It was won on the merits of argument.

Catholics are to operate on the merits of truth, not the merits of argument and much less on the merits of civil law that is in conflict with revelation. In fact, none of the monotheistic religions of the world accept legistlation that is in conflict with revelation. To do so is to give to Caesar what belongs to God.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RoncalliM]

The solution to the entire debate has been so obvious for so long.

1. Legal benefits of marriage are granted only through STATE ISSUED PAPERWORK, available to any two legal residents over the age of 18. All said monetary benefits must be paid back to the state in full in the occasion of divorce, adjusted for purchasing power, ect. This would help reduce abuse, i.e. 2 college roommates getting a marriage license.
2. Any church or organization can “marry” anyone or anything it wants to. If a member of the church of PCP wants to marry his blow up doll, the church maintains the freedom to perform said ceremony. If a Catholic Church chooses not to marry 2 men or 2 women, the Catholic Church maintains that right. Marriages through churches have no legal power.

Churches maintain their autonomy & no one is discriminated against.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Yes I did. That is a teaching of the Catholic Church. Check the Decree on Religious Freedom by Vatican II. There are sins and there are sins that are also crimes, then there are crimes that are not sins. The state has a God-given right to penalize crimes that endanger the rights and safety of the innocent. If a sin does not threaten the rights of the innocent, the state has no right to penalize, birth control is one of those sins.
That’s not the way you said it. Which is why my statement wasn’t wrong - the State does penalize sins (some sins). I agree with you that the State has no right to penalize that which does not threaten the rights ofthe innocent. Laws against birth control, adultery, fornication were wrong. Sure, people committing adultery are hurting their children, but the adultery doesn’t threaten the rights of those children, e.g.

Litigation is not about determining truth, but about proving that someone is guilty or not guilty. Observe that there is no such thing as a verdic of innocent. You are either guilty or not guilty, but you are never innocent. Not guilty means that there was insufficient evidence to prove that you are guilty.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

RoncalliM, sounds workable to me. Any religious group or ethical society can marry or refuse to marry whomever they chose, without regard to the State, and they are not obligated to recognize a City Hall union as anything like marriage as they define it.

 

[JReducation]

The point is very simple. If you’re a faithful Catholic citizen, you cannot allow the state powers that are not proper to the state, even if the state claims them. The state can claim anything it wants. It is the right and duty of citizens to correct the state when it steps over the line and assumes powers that are not proper to its function. One of those areas is revelation. No state has the authority to legislate contrary to revealed truth. Citizens who compartamentalize their thinking are in danger of commiting grave sin, they are in danger of falling into relativism.

Marriage is not being put through this grind, as I call it. Marriage was not created by the state. It was revealed by God. It is based on the covenant between God and Israel and fulfilled in the covenant between Christ and the Church. Since the state is not the origin of marriage is does not have the right to define it in any language contrary to revelation.

To give civl unions the attributes of marriage, because the secular world believes they should have it is not an authority that the state can claim for itself, even though it attempts to do so. Truth does not change. The state cannot rewrite truth.

To defend the power of the state to ignore truth is also contrary to the faith. We are first people of faith, then we are citizens. Our faith is to guide our civic activities, not the other way around. The creature does not legislate to the Creator. This is the message that all men and women of faith must transmit to our legislators. The authority of legislators and laws is governed by the Creator. Even the Founding Fathers understood this and spelled it out very clearly in the Declaratoin of Independence. They spoke of rights with which all men are endowed. They understood that rights were given to men by a higher power, not by man himself.

What we have here, in the case of civil unions, is a sudden departure from the fundamental belief that rights are endowed “by their Creator” and the state is trying to endow. Not only does this change in paradigm given to us through revelation, but it conflicts with the original philosophy upon which the nation was founded.

Without saying as much, we Catholics are allowing the American governemnt to assimilate the same anti-clerical and anti-Catholic practices of the French Revolution. While the French Revolution did much to enhance the democratic rights of man, it also adopted an anti-Catholic philosophy. There is nothing in Catholicism contrary to the democratic rights of man, provided that democracy does not evolve into moral chaos. Man has a right to be free of oppression. He does not have the right to use his freedom to redefine what has been defined by revelation, such as marriage.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[rossum]

No state has the authority to legislate contrary to revealed truth.

How are we to determine what revealed truth says? In Northern Ireland for example there are great differences over what revealed truth says. While you would no doubt agree with the Catholic part of the population, what about the Protestant part for some of whom “revealed truth” says that the Pope is the Antichrist?

Remember also that the UK is a state in which the Monarch cannot be a Catholic by law, and at the time that law was passed it was seen by the country as “revealed truth”.

Marriage was not created by the state. It was revealed by God.

UK Civil Partnerships are not marriage, and are declared in UK law to be purely secular - they cannot be performed in a Church but must be done in a Registry Office.

What about the tax benefits of marriage? Do we know what tax benefits Abraham or Jacob got for the various women who bore them children? What definition of marriage were they using at that time? Did King Solomon get tax concessions for all his wives or just some of them? Since matters of taxation are specifically reserved to the state, “Render unto Caesar…”, surely the state is allowed to set its own taxation policies?

rossum

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

UK Civil Partnerships are not marriage, and are declared in UK law to be purely secular - they cannot be performed in a Church but must be done in a Registry Office.

I’m not sure that people understand this. A Civil Union/Partnership/Association/Mutual Admiration Society, however you want to call it, has to be wholly separate - by law. No church, of whatever doctrine or denomination, should be authorized to take part in the ceremony. Before I married, my fiancée and I appplied at the Registrar’s Office for a license to marry - a license - issued not by the Church, but by the State, and we did’t have to bring a priest along to get it. That’s how a Union should work.

Marriage and Civil Unions must not be confused.

 

[JReducation]

How are we to determine what revealed truth says?

Truth is revealed to us through various sources: natural law, scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium of the Church.

In Northern Ireland for example there are great differences over what revealed truth says. While you would no doubt agree with the Catholic part of the population, what about the Protestant part for some of whom “revealed truth” says that the Pope is the Antichrist?

The Protestants have never claimed that this is revealed truth. That is number one. Second, revealed truth is universal, it is not about a single person or event. Third, those who make that comment are usually angry about other issues, which may or may not have validity. But the veracity is in their anger, not in their claim.

Remember also that the UK is a state in which the Monarch cannot be a Catholic by law, and at the time that law was passed it was seen by the country as “revealed truth”.

The Anglican Church has never said that the Monarchy’s authority over the Church is revealed truth. It was a political position that Henry VIII took and today is an obsolete one, because neither the monarchy nor the Church exercise authority over the realm.

UK Civil Partnerships are not marriage, and are declared in UK law to be purely secular - they cannot be performed in a Church but must be done in a Registry Office.

Morally, you cannot give the same attributes to a civil partnership as you do to marriage. To do so is an injustice aganst the married state.

What about the tax benefits of marriage? Do we know what tax benefits Abraham or Jacob got for the various women who bore them children? What definition of marriage were they using at that time? Did King Solomon get tax concessions for all his wives or just some of them?

Now you’re being dishonest in your questioning. Marriage is a covenant, not a financial contract. The financial oblgiations and rights that belong to married people are a direct result of the covenant. If you did not have the covenant, then you should not have the right to the benefits of the covenant.

Since matters of taxation are specifically reserved to the state, “Render unto Caesar…”, surely the state is allowed to set its own taxation policies?

rossum

The state has a right to regulate taxatioin, as long as it does it for the benefit of the citizens and as long as it abides by moral law. Caesar has rights that are granted to him by God, not by man. When man tries to manipulate the divine rights of another man, then we get into trouble. History has proven that again and again.

The question that we must ask ourselves is, “How far can government go, before it has overstepped its moral rights?”

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF