Not Another Civil-Unions Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter sealabeag
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, nobody is saying that the Pope supports homosexual marriage. That’s not the question at hand. It’s civil unions. I posted his comments about that above.
 
TheLittleLady said:
We, as Catholics, accept these people in their irregular situation. We treat them with kindness and human resepct and fraternity.
Click to expand...
All irregular situations are not equivalent - comparable - equal - of the same gravity - all do not do the same injury to persons and/or to society.
 
sealabeag said:
Honestly, I think this is absolutely nonsensical. Not what you said, but the idea that chaste homosexuals are entering into civil unions to obtain certain legal protections/rights.
Click to expand...
It is. But that’s the issue. At least from what I have read, the Pope’s idea was a civil arrangement open to anyone without any reference to their sexual sins or lack thereof, not just homosexuals. There’s nothing per se wrong with this and, given that it was open to anyone, whether or not individuals who took advantage of them were sinning in other ways would not be relevant. That’s all well and good in a vacuum.

The problem is, every place on earth “civil unions” have been tried, they have been the equivalent of a homosexual civil marriage founded on the presumption of a sexual relationship. The quintessential example is in the UK in the early 2000s, where two sisters tried to enter into a civil union and were denied based on consanguinity. They sued and lost with the decision making it even more clear what civil unions were actually intended for.

That’s why the Church has always opposed them.

As an analogy, one can–at least theoretically–propose a kind of morally acceptable form of slavery (see the Catholic Encyclopedia article here which discusses this: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Ethical Aspect of Slavery ). However, in practice–at least for centuries–slavery has always meant the morally illicit form that reduces human beings to chattel and merely a means of profit with all sorts of other attendant evils along side it. For this reason, the Church has just outright condemned slavery. A Pope proposing this kind of “theoretical slavery” as a practical approach today would no doubt be taken the same way. Which is why Popes don’t do it, nor should they.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts exactly, but much better articulated. 😋 I think some plain common sense is required here - we all know the purpose of civil unions - to formalise a romantic/sexual relationship and provide legal protection. The idea that any two people - a mother and child, man and brother, two friends, etc. can avail of a civil union is, to me, preposterous, and I think your example from the UK shows the reality of the purpose of civil unions.
Others have brought up the fact that Catholics don’t argue against civil unions for heterosexual couples - what’s your take on that? Should we?
Also, what is the substantial difference between a civil union and civil marriage?
 
Sin injures the person committing the sin. Moral harm to a community is harm regardless of the root sin. Kind of like saying it is better to die of a stroke than of a heart attack.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Sin injures the person committing the sin. Moral harm to a community is harm regardless of the root sin. Kind of like saying it is better to die of a stroke than of a heart attack.
Click to expand...
To take your analogy, I’d say it is better to be run over by a rabbit than by an elephant.
Or it’s better to die of old age than by an abortion.
 
sealabeag said:
Others have brought up the fact that Catholics don’t argue against civil unions for heterosexual couples - what’s your take on that? Should we?
Also, what is the substantial difference between a civil union and civil marriage?
Click to expand...
I’ll answer your second question first. As I said before, in practice there doesn’t ever seem to be a difference. If there were a difference, marriage is founded on a sexual relationship, whereas a civil union could potentially be founded on any kind of common living arrangement or partnership. It could really be defined how ever we wanted, since it would be a measure of positive law. Again, though, they are never actually defined in a way that is morally neutral as an orthodox Catholic would want (and to be fair to him, I do think the Pope would define them in this morally neutral way).

As for heterosexual civil marriages, there can still be natural marriages that are not sacramental. There’s nothing wrong with the state recognizing that. Where it becomes a problem is where there is a civil divorce and civil remarriage–but even then, there are circumstances where it could be licit. Even if a Catholic is engaged in such a re-marriage, the Church doesn’t require the civil bond to be dissolved even if the couple repents and chooses to live as brother and sister, when there is a good cause (like the need to mutually support kids).

That’s why I don’t think the Church actively condemns or works against them–they can be used for good means, even if they can also be used for evil. Again, some–like the Pope–think a more broadly defined civil union could be used in the same way. But as I said, it seems in practice unions of people of the same sex have ever only been used for morally objectionable ends.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Honestly, I think this is absolutely nonsensical. Not what you said, but the idea that chaste homosexuals are entering into civil unions to obtain certain legal protections/rights.
Click to expand...
The point is that it would be acceptable - from the standpoint of the church - if it were about a close personal relationship, and not about sex.
 
Sure, I guess it might be. But that’s not the situation currently, being realistic.
 
As long as they are consistently opposed.
To take your analogy, I’d say it is better to be run over by a rabbit than by an elephant.
Or it’s better to die of old age than by an abortion.
We are not talking about venial sin here.
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
As long as they are consistently opposed.
To take your analogy, I’d say it is better to be run over by a rabbit than by an elephant.
Or it’s better to die of old age than by an abortion.
We are not talking about venial sin here.
Click to expand...
In both venial and mortal sins, there are degrees of gravity, and degrees of consequence - temporal and eternal.
 
Trying to rank sin serves no purpose when you know it is bad.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Or is it simply a case of a personal opinion that is contrary to Church teaching but that doesn’t affect things in any substantial way, except of course causing a lot of confusion amongst the lay-faithful.
Click to expand...
It’s in the same realm as the Pope’s position on climate change stewardship or social justice. And by social justice, I am referring to government’s involvement in helping the poor, not an individual’s charity.
 
Last edited:
Doing so illuminates the perfect justice and mercy of God - for me, anyway. Not that I spend time listing sins in order - except when distinctions become important, such as when people see sin as binary only, and fail to distinguish beyond that.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Sure, I guess it might be. But that’s not the situation currently, being realistic.
Click to expand...
So, then, we’ve reached a particular realization: if ‘civil unions’ mean “helping people achieve financial equity in their domestic situations”, then the Church is all for it. But, if it means “helping people commit immoral sexual acts”, then the Church isn’t for it.

In other news, water is wet.
 
Gorgias said:
“helping people achieve financial equity in their domestic situations”, then the Church is all for it.
Click to expand...
🤔 No, I don’t think so. Surely the Church would never be “all for” civil unions, be it for opposite sex couples or homosexuals. Considering they are not sacramental marriage and encourage cohabitation and validate extra-marital relationships. Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top