Oregon Bishops on Civil Union

  • Thread starter Thread starter BLB_Oregon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BLB_Oregon

Guest
I have been struggling with this problem and was delighted to see that the Oregon Conference of Bishops has addressed it.

The letter makes three points of particular note:
  1. Homosexuality does not undermine the basic dignity and worth of the person.
  2. Marriage does provide a particular and valuable contribution to society and as such may justly be encouraged by preference in law. In a like manner, civil union or gay marriage, in providing a quasi-marriage for same-sex partners, encourages the raising of children without both mother and father, and therefore is rightly to be discouraged.
  3. Opposition to same-sex marriage and civil union by the Church does not mean the Church is necessarily opposed to laws providing access for unmarried adults to grant each other reciprocal benefit, which could advance the common good.
See the letter, signed by Archbishop Vlazny, Bishop Vasa, and Bishop Steiner at:
http://www.sentinel.org/articles/2005-17/13851.html

Here are some short exerpts:

“…While there is a distinction between homosexual inclination and activity, each person is a loved child of God with inherent human dignity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church declares that persons with a homosexual inclination “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (#2358) Any hostile or violent words or acts directed at our sisters and brothers are offensive, immoral and must not be tolerated.”

“…It is not discriminatory for society to reserve the full array of marriage benefits to a married man, woman and their children. To legalize civil unions (wherein same-sex couples receive all the benefits of marriage under another name) is to adopt a public policy that, in effect, states that marriage and same-sex civil unions, although called by different names, are essentially the same and equal. They are not…”

“Through same-sex civil unions with marriage-like benefits and through the practices of artificial insemination and surrogate motherhood, society sanctions and encourages expanded experimentation on the birth of children who deliberately will be conceived and born without the benefit of having both mother and father…”

“Accordingly the Oregon Catholic Conference cannot support same-sex civil unions as supportive of the common good for all and must oppose legislative attempts to adopt such public policy in Oregon.”

“In recognition of the fact that there are many people who live together for friendship, companionship and mutual economic support, the concept of reciprocal beneficiaries, with benefits such as survivorship rights, has been advanced. Since reciprocal beneficiaries are dependent on two adults, for example a mother and daughter, being mutually supportive of each other, many people, particularly elderly parents and people with disabilities, would benefit from such a public policy. In general the Oregon Catholic Conference could support a reciprocal beneficiaries public policy as advancing the common good for a significant number of adults in society.”
 
Thanks for this info BLB

Good thing we struck down measure 36 or else that letter would be faced with a lot of opposition (though it will no matter what).
This reminds me of that post you made in that other thread, and I see what you were getting at

Thanks again because I probably would have missed it.
 
BLB_Oregon said:
3) Opposition to same-sex marriage and civil union by the Church does not mean the Church is necessarily opposed to laws providing access for unmarried adults to grant each other reciprocal benefit, which could advance the common good.

You are not presenting the statement correctly. The statement doesn’t say that the Church is not opposed to a reciprocal benefit policy with respect to those in illicit homosexual relationships. Illicit homosexual relationships are not even mentioned in the section that deals with it as you quoted:

“In recognition of the fact that there are many people who live together for friendship, companionship and mutual economic support, the concept of reciprocal beneficiaries, with benefits such as survivorship rights, has been advanced. Since reciprocal beneficiaries are dependent on two adults, for example a mother and daughter, being mutually supportive of each other, many people, particularly elderly parents and people with disabilities, would benefit from such a public policy. In general the Oregon Catholic Conference could support a reciprocal beneficiaries public policy as advancing the common good for a significant number of adults in society.”

The only examples and cases they specifically mention and also point to as being reasons for supporting a reciprocal beneficiary policy are the relationship between a mother and daughter, the elderly, and people with disabilities. No hint of specific appropabation for the giving of benefits to those in illicit homosexual relationships is mentioned. Rather the statement speaks of potentially giving support, in general, to a reciprocal beneficiaries policy – meaning that even though such a policy may immorally give certain benefits and associated recognition to those in illicit homosexual relationships, because such a policy will have other legitimate ends such as they give as examples above, the Conference could support it “in general.”
 
While I applaud the Bishops for speaking out with compassion and firmness, it is CLEAR this law is intended for homosexuals. If it were simpy a union to protect assets, make medical decisions, share common benefits, etc that would be fine. However the rules allow one person to take the other’s name, it is for two people over age 18, and is very specifically marriage by another name.

I think the Bishops made clear that the issue is the benefit of marriage for society and specifically for raising children. I frankly couldn’t care less if Bill and Joe share a mailbox or visit each other in the hospital. I do care if Bill and Joe decide they want a child because they are denying that child a mother.

Lisa N
 
Lisa N:
While I applaud the Bishops for speaking out with compassion and firmness, it is CLEAR this law is intended for homosexuals. If it were simpy a union to protect assets, make medical decisions, share common benefits, etc that would be fine. However the rules allow one person to take the other’s name, it is for two people over age 18, and is very specifically marriage by another name.

I think the Bishops made clear that the issue is the benefit of marriage for society and specifically for raising children. I frankly couldn’t care less if Bill and Joe share a mailbox or visit each other in the hospital. I do care if Bill and Joe decide they want a child because they are denying that child a mother.

Lisa N
I think this is why the letter says the bishops could support reciprical benefits, too, rather than that the Church *would *support them. You find the real intent and likely effects of a law in the fine print. They let it be known that not every law given that name is going to be acceptable.

The law ought to be for people over the age of 18, though, I think. Under that age, a guardianship arrangement is more appropriate.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
Rather the statement speaks of potentially giving support, in general, to a reciprocal beneficiaries policy – meaning that even though such a policy may immorally give certain benefits and associated recognition to those in illicit homosexual relationships, because such a policy will have other legitimate ends such as they give as examples above, the Conference could support it “in general.”

Exactly. My feeling is, if we are permitting people to arrange to give each other benefits as members of a monastery might, that is okay. Thus, a vital point is that the benefit not be a recognition of a sexual relationship. If secular society wants to say “What they do in bed is their business”, well, so be it. We wouldn’t want the police in monasteries or convents, investigating possible illicit relationships.

The policy recognizes that it is preferable to give justice and encourage the common good by facilitating licit relationships, even where some facilitation of the illicit might be an unintended result.
 
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
Exactly. My feeling is, if we are permitting people to arrange to give each other benefits as members of a monastery might, that is okay. Thus, a vital point is that the benefit not be a recognition of a sexual relationship. If secular society wants to say “What they do in bed is their business”, well, so be it. We wouldn’t want the police in monasteries or convents, investigating possible illicit relationships.
I agree, and I actually like the idea of some kind of civil arrangement for two adults, especially considering how many of us are now or will be taking care of aging parents. Also, what if two other relatives decided to live together, like two sisters or cousins or something, then they could make decisions for the other person in case of incapacity, if that is what they wish. And, like BLB said, if the benefits would also be extended to people involved in immoral or illicit relationships, well, the benefit for the common good could be greater.

I’m glad to read this letter from the Oregon bishops, particularly considering our state is flamingly “progressive” and “alternative” and liberal.
 
Lars Larson was pointing out on his Friday show that civil unions are about two main things: money (benefits) and acceptance or approval in some form on the behavior. He makes a good point… I am glad that the statement from the Oregon Conference of Bishops is as conservative as it was. As long as a mother or daughter or son and mother, etc. could apply for the same civil union benefits and it does not negatively impact the economy in any unforseen way, I could probably support this. If it restricted only to homosexuals, however, I would oppose civil unions on the ground that what you choose to do with another person in private should not constitute grounds for the award of valuable health or financial benefits.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top